body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
For what it's worth, The Jewish Chronicle describes the CAA as a "pro-Israel group". [1] Jontel (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The lead (n.b. not lede Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 [2][3][4][5][6][7], and Jonathan Hoffman[8][9], former vice-president of the Zionist Federation[10].

Not currently listed in the article is Liku-Herut UK[11][12], 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, enthusiasms which wouldn't, at first side, be beneficial for somebody trying to be a voice for an Israeli political party in the UK.

    ←   ZScarpia   04:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories