This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZScarpia (talk | contribs) at 16:44, 15 December 2020 (→Etc.: -- comment.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:44, 15 December 2020 by ZScarpia (talk | contribs) (→Etc.: -- comment.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Israel lobby in the United Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
CAA and JLM
Do we have reliable sources saying that the Campaign Against Antisemitism and the Jewish Labour Movement are part of an Israel lobby in the UK, and therefore should be included in this article? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Do we need a source saying exactly that? We have some relevant references within the article. The CAA campaigns explicitly on the basis of the IHRA WDA, most of whose examples have the explicit goal or effect of defending Israel or its supporters. The JLM has Zionism as one of its objects, is a member of the ZFGB and has organisational links with Zionist parties in Israel. As a political organisation, that object and those links necessarily indicate that its campaigning will include pro-Israel activities. It says it is committed 'to promote the centrality of Israel in Jewish life' and is criticised for being Zionist by other organisations and publications. Jontel (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- This feels a bit like synthesis and original research - see WP:SYNTHESIS. Re CAA, it feels very controversial to me to say that campaigning on the basis of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism makes a body part of an Israel lobby; that doesn't seem strong enough. Re JLM, if this article was about Zionist organisations or organisations linked to Israeli parties then sure, but again this article is about the Israel lobby in the UK. I think we need RSs before we can make that leap. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is that lobbying is controversial and its boundaries contested. Lobbying in general and lobbying by foreign powers has always been more private than public; Israel lobbying is particularly controversial. I think now it is a term that is avoided by most sources, particularly as it can slide into discussion of the Jewish lobby. Further, modern definitions of lobbying might well include trying to influence public opinion, including diaspora opinion, in favour of Israel or challenging critics of Israel. For these reasons (secrecy, controversy and lack of a clear boundary), it is a grey area which RS will tend to avoid. I agree that this article suffers from being just a brief section on history and a list of groups. It would benefit from expansion. However, I do think that all the groups promote Israel in one way or another. For example, the CAA campaigned against a boycott by the Tricycle Theatre of the Jewish Film Festival directed against Israel while Zionist organisations like JLM actively promote Israel. Would you be satisfied with the inclusion of RS giving examples of their pro-Israel activities? Jontel (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, The Jewish Chronicle describes the CAA as a "pro-Israel group". Jontel (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- The title of this article is "Israel lobby in the UK" (not "Lobbying for Israel in the UK"), and the lede adds a definite article, the Israel lobby. Lobby implies some kind of single, at least loosely co-ordinated thing, rather than any group that on one or several occasions conducts pro-Israel activity. So, no, I think we'd need RSs saying they are part of this thing. The CAA Tricycle demonstration, by the way, which occupies a couple of lines in their article, was against the boycott of a Jewish film festival, and therefore framed as an anti-antisemitic demo, not as a pro-Israel one; we need to not make that synthesis here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I think we need a broad definition. I do not know what other page covers this rather extensive amount of pro-Israel activity in the UK, so that information would be lost. If we look at the article on the Israel lobby in the US, they seem to use a broad definition, including think tanks, media influencing and campus activity. I agree that we are talking about groups that systematically and consistently promote Israel, not just occasionally. On evidence, the loose co-ordination between these groups is not necessarily formalised or captured in the media on an ongoing basis. I do not think it is possible or necessary to obtain evidence of direction by Israel. Even where there is such evidence, it tends to be covered only by non mainstream sources. The evidence is in the groups' activity. The groups could be segmented into areas of focus to some extent - politics, the media, grassroutes outreach, diaspora, fundraising. I agree that the CAA is much more about antisemitism, even though Israel can be part of it, as it was in the film festival boycott, and could be removed. The JLM does seem to be quiet about Israel, but, as a Zionist organisation, it presumably puts Israel's case within the Labour Party. Leaders such as Ellman and Smeeth campaign strongly for Israel. Jontel (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'd be interested to see if other editors have a view. This seems like synthesis to me. The lede talks about the lobby as a coalition; it is a thing. Therefore we need to verify that these groups are part of that coalition. If every British organisation or thing that is "Zionist" or does something that could be read as supportive of Israel (some antisemitism manifests in relation to Israel, so any group campaigning against antisemitism might fall into that category) belonged in this article, it would be enormous. (The Labour Party and several municipalities have signed up to the IHRA definition; most British Jews call themselves Zionists - should they all be here?) BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I do agree with you that those you mention should be omitted. We should try to narrow the gap between us if we can to help to reach a consensus. It sounds like I haven't been clear enough. The definition I proposed above was 'groups that systematically and consistently promote Israel'. That would exclude the organisations you mention. For example, the CST is not in the article. The test would be evidence that they had promoted Israel systematically and consistently or that this was a stated objective of the group. Do you have an alternative definition and test that we can use for comparison to take things forward? Jontel (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- As indicated above, I agree with you that including the CAA faces difficulties and have removed it. Jontel (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- The lead (n.b. not lede Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section) could have been better worded. I do not think that it intends a coalition of groups with a formal agreement, like a coalition government. My reason for this is that it says 'the diverse coalition of those who, as individuals and/or groups'. Typically, a formal coalition is not between diverse groups or between groups and individuals. Rather, I think it is using the term casually to indicate groups and individuals with similar objectives. To make it clearer, perhaps we could replace ' is the diverse coalition of' with 'comprises'? Jontel (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Coalition is probably the wrong word as it implies more co-operation than there is likely to be. Perhaps 'collection' might be better?
- Although I don't have sources to hand right at this moment, given that the CAA was created due to a perception that the Board of Deputies was failing to effectively counter criticism of Israel at a time when it was attacking Gaza, that its efforts are largely directed at countering support for BDS, and that it tries to conflate antisemitism and anti-Zionism, it shouldn't be hard to find source evidence justifying its inclusion in the current article.
- I believe that, like the Board of Deputies, support for Israel is effectively written into the JLM's constitution as one of its purposes, giving a prima facie justification for its inclusion here, though, of course, source evidence is required.
- Evidence of links between the JLM and Israeli government bodies shouldn't be hard to find. I'd take a guess that, similarly, links between the CAA and the US Israel lobby, such as its sources of funding, shouldn't be that hard to come by.
- ← ZScarpia 16:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Jontel and ZScarpia. I think I agree the lead (not lede!) could be better worded along the lines you suggest, but that takes the article away from being about a/the "lobby" and towards it being about something like "lobbying" (i.e. a change of title and not just lead), which was debated on the talk pages a decade or so ago and rejected - maybe that discussion should be revisited? If not, then I still think it would be synthesis to describe these organisations (and possibly Habonim Dror) as part of a/the lobby without reliable sources saying exactly that. (Re the specifics of the CAA, our article on them doesn't say was created due to a perception that the Board of Deputies was failing to effectively counter criticism of Israel at a time when it was attacking Gaza, but that it was created to counter the spike in antisemitism associated with the Gaza conflict. Nor does our article say anything about BDS, let alone that this is where its activities are largely directed.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see that there was no consensus on a name change back in 2008. The article lead acknowledges that the term is problematic. WP:SYNTH says 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' Just to be clear, I do not see in the article an explicit statement or implication that these organisations are directed by the government of Israel or operate in a highly co-ordinated manner. There is no conclusion. It is a list of organisations involved in the act of lobbying. Certainly, the Israeli government will have foreign policy goals and seek to influence others. However, the more developed article on the Israel lobby in the US includes discussion of a wide and disparate set of organisations. Perhaps this could be stated in the article explicitly. I can see that e.g. Pro-Israel lobbying in the United Kingdom might seem a more accurate article title. I think it is incorrect to see any lobby as an organised entity by definition. A lobby comprises people and organisations involved in lobbying. It has become the common usage e.g. gun lobby, oil lobby etc. So, there is RS that these organisations are involved in lobbying. Yes, I agree it would be useful to have a newspaper article or book listing these organisations as pro-Israel lobbyists but that seems unlikely due to sensitivities. There will be academic material on some of them which I can add. On JLM, I have added to the JLM section its belief in the centrality of Israel. Jontel (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have tweaked the lead to give a broader definition. I fear that a definition requiring proven collaboration or direction between participants would not be practicable, as lacking in reliable sources and prone to conspiracy theories. However, I'm happy to discuss alternative formulations. This gives everyone a clear framework for now to work with. A section providing an overview would be appropriate and I appreciate Scarpia coming up with sources. It would also be common and inappropriate to have a section discussing a narrower definition and a subset of organisations, if anyone ever wished to do that. Jontel (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Personally I still feel there is a major difference between a lobby and campaigning for something, particularly if the campaigning is one of a number of activities (e.g. JLM's mission is also to promote the Labour Party in the Jewish community and to campaign for socialism in the UK and Israel), but I've already made this point. Can you clarify what you mean by "a newspaper article or book listing these organisations as pro-Israel lobbyists... seems unlikely due to sensitivities"? What "sensitivities"? If something can't be sourced from reliable sources, we shouldn't assume it is true should we? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- On sensitivities, looking at the Criticism section, I am struck by the number of times critics have talked of pressure being exerted against them, of complaints being laid against them and of them losing their positions. All of this would, I suggest, tend to discourage coverage. However, I do agree that a reliable source is needed to assert a statement. We have two types of source. One is the sources within Critism which discuss the existence and impact of the pro-Israel lobby in general terms. The second is the sources which reference lobbying/ advocacy by each of the organisations within the article. I accept that some of the organisations have other functions. That is quite normal in advocacy: there are both specialist advocacy organisations and organisations with broader roles which nevertheless promote their case. Jontel (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- I recognise your point on JLM. While I expect they do promote pro-Israel positions within Labour, that activity is not every evident and is limited to within the party. Zionist views are not sufficient, as you say. I have removed it. There is much stronger evidence for the BoD and JLC and I have added those, together with the evidence. They do many other things, of course, but their significance means that they cannot be ignored. Jontel (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- I feel that the order of the article probably isn't helping. We have the detail of a lot of groups, followed by a discussion, mainly on impact. Putting the discussion before the groups to allow readers to understand the 'big picture' before getting into a lot of detail would be more usual in communications. Also, heading the discussion Criticism makes it needlessly adversarial. Certainly many of the commentators are critics, which is not unusual in commentary, but using a more neutral term such as Impact or Discussion would be more effective. It would recognise the case for the lobby and facilitate inclusion of more positive material. Jontel (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think I agree with this last point. I would add that there are also lots of sources which question whether there is an Israel lobby as such in the UK, and sources which discuss racist applications of the concept "Israel lobby" in a UK context, and it would be good to include them there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- I feel that the order of the article probably isn't helping. We have the detail of a lot of groups, followed by a discussion, mainly on impact. Putting the discussion before the groups to allow readers to understand the 'big picture' before getting into a lot of detail would be more usual in communications. Also, heading the discussion Criticism makes it needlessly adversarial. Certainly many of the commentators are critics, which is not unusual in commentary, but using a more neutral term such as Impact or Discussion would be more effective. It would recognise the case for the lobby and facilitate inclusion of more positive material. Jontel (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see that there was no consensus on a name change back in 2008. The article lead acknowledges that the term is problematic. WP:SYNTH says 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' Just to be clear, I do not see in the article an explicit statement or implication that these organisations are directed by the government of Israel or operate in a highly co-ordinated manner. There is no conclusion. It is a list of organisations involved in the act of lobbying. Certainly, the Israeli government will have foreign policy goals and seek to influence others. However, the more developed article on the Israel lobby in the US includes discussion of a wide and disparate set of organisations. Perhaps this could be stated in the article explicitly. I can see that e.g. Pro-Israel lobbying in the United Kingdom might seem a more accurate article title. I think it is incorrect to see any lobby as an organised entity by definition. A lobby comprises people and organisations involved in lobbying. It has become the common usage e.g. gun lobby, oil lobby etc. So, there is RS that these organisations are involved in lobbying. Yes, I agree it would be useful to have a newspaper article or book listing these organisations as pro-Israel lobbyists but that seems unlikely due to sensitivities. There will be academic material on some of them which I can add. On JLM, I have added to the JLM section its belief in the centrality of Israel. Jontel (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Jontel and ZScarpia. I think I agree the lead (not lede!) could be better worded along the lines you suggest, but that takes the article away from being about a/the "lobby" and towards it being about something like "lobbying" (i.e. a change of title and not just lead), which was debated on the talk pages a decade or so ago and rejected - maybe that discussion should be revisited? If not, then I still think it would be synthesis to describe these organisations (and possibly Habonim Dror) as part of a/the lobby without reliable sources saying exactly that. (Re the specifics of the CAA, our article on them doesn't say was created due to a perception that the Board of Deputies was failing to effectively counter criticism of Israel at a time when it was attacking Gaza, but that it was created to counter the spike in antisemitism associated with the Gaza conflict. Nor does our article say anything about BDS, let alone that this is where its activities are largely directed.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'd be interested to see if other editors have a view. This seems like synthesis to me. The lede talks about the lobby as a coalition; it is a thing. Therefore we need to verify that these groups are part of that coalition. If every British organisation or thing that is "Zionist" or does something that could be read as supportive of Israel (some antisemitism manifests in relation to Israel, so any group campaigning against antisemitism might fall into that category) belonged in this article, it would be enormous. (The Labour Party and several municipalities have signed up to the IHRA definition; most British Jews call themselves Zionists - should they all be here?) BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I think we need a broad definition. I do not know what other page covers this rather extensive amount of pro-Israel activity in the UK, so that information would be lost. If we look at the article on the Israel lobby in the US, they seem to use a broad definition, including think tanks, media influencing and campus activity. I agree that we are talking about groups that systematically and consistently promote Israel, not just occasionally. On evidence, the loose co-ordination between these groups is not necessarily formalised or captured in the media on an ongoing basis. I do not think it is possible or necessary to obtain evidence of direction by Israel. Even where there is such evidence, it tends to be covered only by non mainstream sources. The evidence is in the groups' activity. The groups could be segmented into areas of focus to some extent - politics, the media, grassroutes outreach, diaspora, fundraising. I agree that the CAA is much more about antisemitism, even though Israel can be part of it, as it was in the film festival boycott, and could be removed. The JLM does seem to be quiet about Israel, but, as a Zionist organisation, it presumably puts Israel's case within the Labour Party. Leaders such as Ellman and Smeeth campaign strongly for Israel. Jontel (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- The title of this article is "Israel lobby in the UK" (not "Lobbying for Israel in the UK"), and the lede adds a definite article, the Israel lobby. Lobby implies some kind of single, at least loosely co-ordinated thing, rather than any group that on one or several occasions conducts pro-Israel activity. So, no, I think we'd need RSs saying they are part of this thing. The CAA Tricycle demonstration, by the way, which occupies a couple of lines in their article, was against the boycott of a Jewish film festival, and therefore framed as an anti-antisemitic demo, not as a pro-Israel one; we need to not make that synthesis here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, The Jewish Chronicle describes the CAA as a "pro-Israel group". Jontel (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is that lobbying is controversial and its boundaries contested. Lobbying in general and lobbying by foreign powers has always been more private than public; Israel lobbying is particularly controversial. I think now it is a term that is avoided by most sources, particularly as it can slide into discussion of the Jewish lobby. Further, modern definitions of lobbying might well include trying to influence public opinion, including diaspora opinion, in favour of Israel or challenging critics of Israel. For these reasons (secrecy, controversy and lack of a clear boundary), it is a grey area which RS will tend to avoid. I agree that this article suffers from being just a brief section on history and a list of groups. It would benefit from expansion. However, I do think that all the groups promote Israel in one way or another. For example, the CAA campaigned against a boycott by the Tricycle Theatre of the Jewish Film Festival directed against Israel while Zionist organisations like JLM actively promote Israel. Would you be satisfied with the inclusion of RS giving examples of their pro-Israel activities? Jontel (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- This feels a bit like synthesis and original research - see WP:SYNTHESIS. Re CAA, it feels very controversial to me to say that campaigning on the basis of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism makes a body part of an Israel lobby; that doesn't seem strong enough. Re JLM, if this article was about Zionist organisations or organisations linked to Israeli parties then sure, but again this article is about the Israel lobby in the UK. I think we need RSs before we can make that leap. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Parts of the last paragraph of my 18:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC) comment below could equally go here.
Those who oppose lobbying on behalf of Israel, by which they would mean activism in support or defence of Israel, would be the main users of the term "Israel lobby"; and those meant by the term "Israel lobby" would likely object to being described as a lobby. Note what Walt and Mearsheimer said about the use of the term in the United States. As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to detail objections to the use of the term, some sources for which I've listed below.
In regard to whether the JLM should be included in this article, note that it was included in Al Jazeera's series "The Lobby", unused footage from which was passed on to the Electronic Intifada and used as the basis of articles such as Asa Winstanley's Jewish Labour Movement was refounded to fight Corbyn.
← ZScarpia 11:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see how we might have sections on challenges to the concept and on conspiracy theories. The current sections based on author categorisation might be usefully changed to advocacy targets: overview, politics, media, grassroots. Criticism of pro-Palestinians using e.g. the IHRA definition by the JLM and others is certainly an area which some would say was relevant. Jontel (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC) We could then incorporate the arguments, including the ones questioning the concept and discussing racist applications, and the groups in the relevant areas of politics, media grassroots etc., creating a structure focused on specific areas. Is it worth trying? Jontel (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- So, I've put the discussion above the list of groups, which is much more usual, and structured it by activity area. This has enabled the addition of a section of criticisms of the concept. Of course, many of the specific references to the lobby by critics are accompanied by specific responses to them. Jontel (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- I’ve associated the groups with their areas of interest for greater ease of comprehension. I think that gives a much clearer picture than an undifferentiated list. I hope you agree. Jontel (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think that's better. I would put the BoD and JLC in the "community" section. Putting them first is very misleading, as Israel lobbying is a very minor part of their briefs, which are primarily communal. I also think it is not ideal to present Mills et al in this way, as they are pretty controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with your points. Mills is hard to summarise, so I have moved it to further reading. The BoD and JLC are in this section because, while their lobbying is a small part of what they do, they can address multiple audiences across the varuious sections. The groups in the community section only address the community i.e. the section structure is audience based. I am conscious we need more general text. Jontel (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think that's better. I would put the BoD and JLC in the "community" section. Putting them first is very misleading, as Israel lobbying is a very minor part of their briefs, which are primarily communal. I also think it is not ideal to present Mills et al in this way, as they are pretty controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- I’ve associated the groups with their areas of interest for greater ease of comprehension. I think that gives a much clearer picture than an undifferentiated list. I hope you agree. Jontel (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Etc.
A relevant essay by Jane Jackman of the University of Exeter appearing in Glasgow University's eSharp magazine: eSharp (Glasgow University) - Jane Jackman - Advocating Occupation: Outsourcing Zionist Propaganda in the UK, Issue 25 Vol.1 Rise and Fall, June 2017. Two people mentioned in the article are David Collier, a member of the team behind the GnasherJew twitter feed , and Jonathan Hoffman, former vice-president of the Zionist Federation.
Not currently listed in the article is Liku-Herut UK, which was described by The Jewish Chronicle as, "an advocacy group which describes itself as the voice of the right-wing Israeli party in Britain." The Acting National Director of Herut UK, as well as the founder of Essex Friends of Israel and Zionist Future, is Harry Saul Markham, who appeared prominently in news reports of 2018's Labour antisemitism protests wearing a fedora and a Menachem Begin shirt. Besides Begin (a supporter of Argentina in the Falklands War, despite giving assuances not to be), Markham is also an admirer of members of the Lehi/Stern Gang (scourge of notorious antisemites Folke Benadotte, Harry Truman and Winston Churchill), enthusiasms which wouldn't, at first side, be beneficial for somebody trying to be the voice of anything in the UK.
← ZScarpia 04:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Likud-Herut UK is obviously a pro-Israel advocacy group, but again I'd question if it is a noteworthy part of any "lobby" as it is very marginal. I really think we need reliable sources which say there is a lobby and these groups are members of it, rather than synthesising disparate pieces of information about groups. I think Likud-Herut has had a total of two mentions in reliable news media ever, both articles in the Jewish Chronicle, the one quoted above emphasising its marginality. It is not even mentioned in the Tab article. Including such a non-noteworthy organisation in this article would be undue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Likud UK does not even advocate for Israel exactly, as the JC quote shows; it advocates for one ruling party in Israel. Calling it part of the Israel Lobby would like calling Republicans Overseas UK part of "the American lobby". BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- The organisation does seem to show an interest in lobbying in the UK. e.g. from its website "For the purposes of UK advocacy we believe that terms like ‘illegal occupation’ should never go unchallenged in any interview or exchange with parliamentarians or the media." and "But we expect the silent majority of British parliamentarians to stand up and loudly condemn such bigots in the public domain." and "we are of the opinion that the IHRA definition of anti Semitism should be used by all mainstream political parties in the UK" and "help us to change the community dialogue". However, I also would prefer to see evidence of sustained lobbying activity before adding it. I accept that it has a political party role. Jontel (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Further, it's perhaps worth mentioning that the full description given on the page linked to is "graduate student".
- The Jewish Chronicle describes Likud-Herut UK as an advocacy organisation without explaining what exactly it advocates. I agree that additional sources would need to be found in order explicitly to establish whether and what role it has in lobbying for Israel, though I think that Saul Markam's involvement as the founder of Essex Friends of Israel and Zionist Future points towards it having some.
- On the question of sourcing, hopefully it's not controversial that anti-Zionist groups and individuals commonly refer to an Israel lobby in the UK, which can be confirmed by carrying out a simple Google search. That search will also reveal that pro-Israel organisations and individuals sometimes bridle at the suggestion that those organisations and individuals may act as a lobby. In that regard, it may be worth noting Walt and Mearheimer's comment on the US Israel Lobby: "Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’." On the question of sources which may be counted as 'reliable', there have been two television serials or programmes on the UK Israel lobby, the 2009 episode of Channel 4 Dispatches called "Inside Britain's Israel Lobby" () (which produced objections such as , and ) and Al Jazeera's 4-part series "The Lobby" (). Al Jazeera accompanied its series with articles such as this one. The Dispatches programme was accompanied by a booklet written by Peter Oborne and James Jones which can be accessed by clicking on the links at this openDemocracy page. Of mainstream newspaper articles, that simple Google search turned up two, a 2009 one from the Guardian on Bicom ("How the pro-Israel lobby in Britain benefits from a generous London tycoon") and a 2012 one by Peter Oborne in The Telegraph on the Conservative Friends of Israel: "Some 80 per cent of all Tory MPs are members, including most Cabinet ministers. No other lobbying organisation – and certainly not one that acts in the interests of a foreign country – carries as much weight at Westminster. Every year, it takes a significant number of parliamentarians to Israel. Meanwhile, its sponsors play an important role in financing both the Tories nationally, and MPs at the local level. There is no doubt that the CFI has exercised a powerful influence over policy. The Conservative politician and historian Robert Rhodes James, writing in the Jerusalem Post in 1995, called it “the largest organisation in Western Europe dedicated to the cause of the people of Israel”" ("The cowardice at the heart of our relationship with Israel"). Is that enough to be getting on with?
- ← ZScarpia 18:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- On the graduate student, is she really worth a whole four-sentence paragraph? Why do you think she is noteworthy? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- Noteworthiness of the author isn't a necessary element of a source's reliablility. If it was, a huge amount of the journalistic content currently cited in Misplaced Pages would have to be removed. Given objections to using Robert Fisk and Peter Hitchens in other articles, it would appear that noteworthiness is not a guarantee of inclusion either. Nor, for that matter, is the holding of academic posts (though, admittedly, I can think of so-called academic experts who write tripe and have difficulty arguing logically). Have you any objection to the accuracy of the content that has been included? ← ZScarpia 11:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think her discussion of grassroots campaigning is of interest, as that is absent from most or all other commentary in the article. No doubt the passage could be improved. We should probably look at adding rather than removing material at the moment, along the lines suggested. Jontel (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am not talking about her notability (WP:Notability) but her noteworthiness. See WP:NOTEWORTHY. It is an issue of due weight (WP:WEIGHT). My question is whether this minor graduate student's comments deserve so much space in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- How much space do you think her comments might deserve? She has 5.25 lines at present. Jontel (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NOTEWORTHY links to the "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists" section of the WP:Notability guideline. As such, it has no connection with reliability, which governs whether sources may be used for statements of fact. 'Weight' is about balancing different viewpoints and the relevant significance of different aspects of a topic. Do you think that there are missing viewpoints? The source is lengthy, which may be seen as justification for sourcing four sentences from it. The quality of the writing seems quite high, higher than newspaper standards at least. If you don't consider a graduate student's writing to be worthy of inclusion (from memory, the topic relates to her area of study), then presumably you'd also have a problem with the amount of content cited to sources written by non-expert journalists? ← ZScarpia 17:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, noteworthiness is different from notability. Notability does not apply within articles but noteworthiness does. I didn't say it was about reliability; I said that it was about weight. There is currently not a balancing of viewpoints in the section that deal with viewpoints, but a lot of weight given to critical voices such as the highly controversial Mills et al. If, as Jontel notes, balancing material was added this would be less of an issue, but when due weight should follow the distribution of views published in reliable sources, giving a paragraph to a grad student paper in a pretty marginal student journal to further bulk out such positions seems to me to be undue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I have cut it right back to her key points and focus. I like it that she is relatively current (2017) and takes an overview in contrast to the other material in the Society section which is all 2007 and cites specific instances. Jontel (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, noteworthiness is different from notability. Notability does not apply within articles but noteworthiness does. I didn't say it was about reliability; I said that it was about weight. There is currently not a balancing of viewpoints in the section that deal with viewpoints, but a lot of weight given to critical voices such as the highly controversial Mills et al. If, as Jontel notes, balancing material was added this would be less of an issue, but when due weight should follow the distribution of views published in reliable sources, giving a paragraph to a grad student paper in a pretty marginal student journal to further bulk out such positions seems to me to be undue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Noteworthiness of the author isn't a necessary element of a source's reliablility. If it was, a huge amount of the journalistic content currently cited in Misplaced Pages would have to be removed. Given objections to using Robert Fisk and Peter Hitchens in other articles, it would appear that noteworthiness is not a guarantee of inclusion either. Nor, for that matter, is the holding of academic posts (though, admittedly, I can think of so-called academic experts who write tripe and have difficulty arguing logically). Have you any objection to the accuracy of the content that has been included? ← ZScarpia 11:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Re-visiting what I wrote in my initial comment, it would probably be as well to point out that I conflated two separate organisations, Herut UK and the much older Likud Herut UK.
David Collier, part of the GnasherJew conglomerate, is currently kicking off about Jane Jackman's eSharp article. I do hope that Glasgow University refuses to fold and tells him where to go (back under whichever bridge he crawled out from underneath, I imagine) and what to do with himself.
← ZScarpia 16:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- Unknown-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- B-Class United Kingdom articles
- Unknown-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- High-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Judaism articles
- Unknown-importance Judaism articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles