Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom

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". [1] 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 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)

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)

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)

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. <<<REDACTED>>>     ←   ZScarpia   04:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that Jackman is a student not an academic.[2]

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[3] 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’."[4] 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" ([5][6][7]) (which produced objections such as [8], [9] and [10]) and Al Jazeera's 4-part series "The Lobby" ([11]). 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 Wikipedia 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)

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 is currently kicking off about Jane Jackman's eSharp article.[12][13]
    ←   ZScarpia   16:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Outsourcing Zionist Propaganda in the UK reference

The University of Glasgow has recently apologized for publishing the article Outsourcing Zionist Propaganda in the UK by Janet Jackman. The apology is now attached to the document at this link. In particular, they say that the article is not rigorous, well-balanced, and supported by evidence. I suggest we remove all mention of it from this page. Grothendieck1990 (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur, but with a reservation. This article certainly shouldn't uncritically adopt sources that have effectively been withdrawn, but it would be better if it included a critical examinination of the term "Israel lobby" and the way it is used.

The publishers of the eSharp editorial team acknowledge that Janet Jackman's article, and by extension this article, promoted "an unfounded antisemitic theory regarding the State of Israel and its activity in the United Kingdom." I believe similar criticism might be made of other documents cited here. We shouldn't throw Jackman's article into the memory hole: we should include it as an example of the way tendentious propaganda may be disguised within ostensibly academic sources.

This is an opportunity to create a better and more thoughtful article and I think it would be a pity to simply treat it as something that calls for a quick edit. Joe in Australia (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with both of you. Massive use of primary sources suggests original research/synthesis, with no sources describing the groups listed here (many of which are non-notable and possibly ephemeral) as part of a genuine Israel lobby. The only scholarly source remaining is an opinion piece by David Miller which is pretty contentious. Article needs massive rewrite. Have removed Jackman and tagged some of the minor issues. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Misread Joe in Australia. I was maybe too hasty in removing Jackman. Feel free to find the words to reinsert! BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The article is subject to the ARBPIA restrictions: "Accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab–Israeli conflict." Editors who don't meet the qualifications may however use the talkpage to "post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." The first two editors to comment here do not meet the 500-edit requirement in order to edit the article itself. At the time of writing: Grothendieck1990 has made 34 edits since 02 December 2020; Joe in Australia has made 210 edits since 24 May 2006.

Some background information:

David Collier, who is mentioned in the article as one of the founders of Israel Coalition, writes a blog called Beyond the Great Divide <<<REDACTED>>>

Jane Jackman's eSharp article is mentioned in the following "Beyond the Great Divide" pieces:

- Glasgow University publishes antisemitic conspiracy theory, 11 December 2020. (Note: eSharp's article's are ‘double blind peer reviewed’; Jackman's article was cited in a paper in International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives Vol. 17, No. 1, 2018 which was presented at a British Society for Middle Eastern Studies annual conference).

- Victory – as Glasgow University apologises for publishing antisemitic article, 08 July 2021.

The first of Collier's articles mentions that Ilan Pappé was a co-supervisor of Jane Jackman's at Essex University. After eSharp published a recantation of Jackman's article, Pappé posted the following comment on Facebook:

- 12 July 2021: "Jane Jackman who was a PhD student in Exeter in 2016 and left for personal reasons, published an excellent paper on the pro-Zionist lobby in Britain in E-Sharp, the student newspaper of Glasgow university.[14] A Zionist troll, Collier, "researched" the paper, send a long review full of factoids (irrelevant facts) and intimidated the poor students to publish the following apology (the full quote is appended to the article) ... I am glad they left the article as their preface proves what the article says. Zionists can affect freedom of speech in the UK. But shame on e-sharp for caving in. And well done Jane for exposing the truth."

    ←   ZScarpia   13:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC) (Disclosure: David Collier is not a fan of my editing.)

Bobfrombrockley, do you think that it's possible that you might have a conflict of interest as far as the current article is concerned?[15]     ←   ZScarpia   13:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC) (Disclosure: David Collier has singled out Bobfrombrockley for his role fighting for the truth in this article and lamented that he has been reduced "to negotiating over how much antisemitism should be allowed.")

The parenthetical comment above uappears to be from ZScarpia - Joe in Australia (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

ZScarpia, it would've been helpful if you'd pinged me in asking me this. No, I don't believe I have a conflict of interest in editing this article. I am not a member of the alleged Israel lobby in the UK, and nor are, to my knowledge, any of my family, friends, clients or employers; nor do I have any financial interest in this alleged lobby; nor is it my competitor or opponent. I don't see the relevance of the fact that someone you dislike once commented in passing off-wiki on the fact that my edits here are truthful. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

So, you personally (let alone your friends, family or colleagues) are not involved currently, or have not been involved in the recent(ish) past, in any significant way in trying to influence opinion in the UK, in Parliament or more widely, in favour of Israel, or against the Palestinian cause?

David Collier seems to have played a major role in getting the current eSharp editors to withdraw support for the publication of Jane Jackman's article. In writing about his campaign against the article and its use on Wikipedia he specifically praised your role here (and condemned mine). You're being too modest in writing that he "once commented in passing off-wiki on the fact that my edits here are truthful." I first added a disclosure pointing out that I had been mentioned in Collier articles, then added a complementary one pointing out that you had too.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

ZScarpia, again please tag me if you're talking directly to me. I think I can categorically say that I am not involved currently, nor have I been involved in the recent(ish) past, in any significant or insignificant way in trying to influence opinion in the UK, in Parliament or more widely, in favour of Israel, or against the Palestinian cause. (I may have online acquaintances who are, as I have online acquaintances involved in trying to influence opinion in the UK in favour of the Palestinian cause.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks (... and thanks for changing the word 'disclaimer' to 'disclosure - I was about to do that myself). I have taken note of your wish to be tagged and will do it in future on occasions when I think that you might particularly want your attention to be drawn to comments.     ←   ZScarpia   08:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Pappe's post doesn't address the substantive criticisms, nor does an advisor's defense of his student (which, after all, is only to be expected) outweigh the significance of an article having been withdrawn. I actually think Jackman's article ought to be included, but only as an example of the sort of things that have been found to be misleading and antisemitic. Pappe's defense of her might be included in the same section. --Joe in Australia (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I posted the material above to provide information about the current eSharp editors' decision to disown Jane Jackman's article, which had been cited as a source here. None of it was provided with the intention of including it in the current Wikipedia article.

In allowing editors who haven't met the 500/30 requirements (that is, non-autoconfirmed users) to "post constructive comments and make edit requests" on talkpages, I think that an opening was mistakenly provided through which a coach and horses have been driven.

Note that the Neutrality policy means that all significant points of view should be outlined and that points of view should not be represented as fact.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Autumn 2021 update

Cited to Alison Campsie's 25 October article in The Scotsman, a briefish reference to the 500-strong petition submitted to Glasgow University has just been added: "The following October, a petition signed by 500 individuals, including scholar Noam Chomsky and film director Ken Loach, called for the apology to be withdrawn."
Further material which could be cited to the article:

• At the time of publication, Jane Jackman's article was peer reviewed by eSharp (David Collier's blog stated that eSharp double-blind peer reviews material).
• In calling for the apology to be withdrawn, the petition rejects its claim that the "article promoted an 'unfounded antisemitic theory.'"
• Noam Chomsky wrote: "The capitulation by the University of Glasgow is a serious blow to academic freedom that should not be allowed to stand."
• The article remains on the eSharp website, with the addition of the preface added in May.
• The article confirms that Ilan Pappé was a supervisor of Jane Jackman's at Exeter University and that he complained about the disowning of her paper by eSharp (David Collier's blog stated that Pappé was a co-supervisor rather than the supervisor). I quoted above Pappé's 12 July 2021 Facebook comment. (Joe_in_Australia [currently on 228 edits] later wrote: "Pappe's defense of her might be included in the same section.")
• Glasgow University stated (the petition was submitted to the Chancellor's office]: “We have received the petition today [Sunday] and are considering it fully. We will respond to the signatories in due course.”
• The content added to the Wikipedia article mentioned that the petition's signatories included Noam Chomsky (mentioned first in the newspaper article) and Ken Loach (mentioned third). Other signatories, from "28 different countries", mentioned were: "Nobel Prize winning chemist George Smith" (mentioned second), "historian Sheila Rowbotham", Ronnie Kasrils ("the former South African government minister and key figure in the African National Congress during the apartheid era"), Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC and "Jonathan Rosenhead, emeritus professor at the London School of Economics and chair of the British Committee for Universities of Palestine."
  

Perhaps at some stage, it might be reported that the campaign to get eSharp to withdraw Jane Jackman's article was connected to its being cited as a source on the current Wikipedia article. (Anyone interested may refer to Ilan Pappé's Facebook comment and David Collier's blog.)
    ←   ZScarpia   02:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Zscarpia, Jackman's article is not especially notable. The Scotsman is the principal reliable third-party source on this incident, so the passage could easily become undue. Chomsky and Loach are probably the best known signatories to the petition for UK readers, so it seems reasonable to mention them ahead of anyone else. Philip Cross (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Articles themselves aren't notable, this one has become notable by virtue of coverage. Not in the article as yet is that following the 500 petition, the Uni has backed off the antisemitism claim and the paper remains up with an amended statement.Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

We're talking about (or should be talking about) whether the eSharp article (recall: an essay by a graduate student, in a graduate student online journal) is noteworthy (due) in a WP article about the Israel lobby, not whether it is "notable" or newsworthy. There are now three RSs which have reported on the kerfuffle about the article, but not one of them gives us reason to think it is a source we should be quoting about the Israel lobby. It has not been positively cited by any expert on lobbying or Anglo-Jewry, for example. Also, just to clarify this point following the 500 petition, the Uni has backed off the antisemitism claim and the paper remains up with an amended statement: First, the Uni amended their statement in quite a limited way; it still says the responsibility for articles to be rigorous, well-balanced, and supported by evidence. This article does not meet those standards of scholarship. In particular, this article employs some discursive strategies, including a biased selection of sources as well as the misrepresentation of data, which promote what some would regard as an unfounded theory regarding the State of Israel and its activity in the United Kingdom. When even the journal editors say this about an article, we should not be using it as a reliable source on a contentious topic! If the student finishes her PhD and publishes peer reviewed scholarly articles that others cite, we can consider including her work then. Second, the amendment came in August/September, i.e. before the petition not following it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

They did not say that to start with, they only said it 3 years later, the papers there are double blind peer reviewed. Note "some would regard as an unfounded theory"...it says "some" which means at a minimum, "some" don't think that and the paper remains up. Your point about before and after the petition is not correct per the Guardian. You left this in when the paper was being accused of an antisemitism theory but now that it isn't, you suddenly decide that is undue. Who do you think you are kidding here? Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I have included instead an edited (to clarify Lobby aspects) but copied in large part from the David Collier (political activist) article, currently at AfD, but which has had a lot of eyes/work on it as the AfD progressed. Arguing that it is not Lobby related and due seems a not correct position to take. If it is due in an article about a blogger, it is certainly due here.Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe I removed it before. Now that the university have looked again and still consider it not to meet scholarly standards, it feels like the case for removal is stronger. There seems to be no consensus for inclusion (two editors for and three against, I think) and onus is on those arguing for inclusion to reach consensus before including. I see the Guardian have edited their article since I read it to discuss when the new note was added. The oldest version on archive.org is October 26 which is the new version, which says "This editorial was amended in September 2021 to address potential ambiguity in wording", but any discussion of that would be original research so I'll stand down on that issue! It's true that eSharp is peer reviewed - but by other postgraduate students ("Any postgraduate student in the Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences or Education as well as post-doctoral students within the first year of gaining their PhD are welcome to review for eSharp.") I think you really need to make the case why this article is a good source on the topic of this Wikipedia article. Am thinking of raising it at RSN for further eyes as we're a very small number of editors getting tangled up here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You have edited on many occasions since it went in and said nothing about it until just now after I made a comment here about it not being uptodate. As you say, currently, it is only you and I commenting, let's see if anyone else will. Papers that don't meet scholarly standards get taken down, why isn't this one, do you think? I think it's obvious and Rosenhead explains it well. The fact of all the current kerfuffle makes the case easily, you have a person referred to in this article already (Collier) (why is he in here if not Lobby related?) going on about a paper that alleges "Lobby" (as well as critiquinq him personally) and then people commenting about "Lobby" (that's what led to the petition). Apart from this specific issue this article needs quite a lot of work afaics, there is an abundance of material out there for the purpose, I might put it on todo list.Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

re Selfstudier, I did actually remove this earlier, on 9 July {following Grothendieck1990 and Joe in Australia comments above. Chalst removed a separate mention of it due to unreliability in August, but {u|ZScarpia}} reverted the latter edit as the discussion on the talk page was on-going, so I clarified rather than reverted to avoid edit warring. But reviewing this talk page, I really don't feel there is consensus for inclusion, given four editors have now commented or edited in favour of removing and only two in favour of including. I will not revert your edit putting it back in to avoid edit warring. I think the wording is accurate, including the timings, but I really don't think any of it is DUE here and absolutely don't think Rosenhead's comment is DUE. If this was an article about eSharp of course his opinions would be noteworthy, but not in this article. apers that don't meet scholarly standards get taken down, why isn't this one, do you think? Not sure we can speculate on that, may simply be a free speech thing. I don't really understand your point about Collier, but there's a whole parallel discussion about that so I don't think we need to go in to it. Where I agree with you fully is this: Apart from this specific issue this article needs quite a lot of work BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The only reason for Rosenhead opinion is to clarify the eventual outcome ie how is it that this supposedly non scholarly paper is still up? Because it is not clear, even from the amended statement, that it is in fact unscholarly ("some"). If we are leaving the rest of it in at least for now, I don't mind losing the Rosenhead opinion since I actually think it is blindingly obvious without the need for his opinion.Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Now that the university have looked again and still consider it not to meet scholarly standards, it feels like the case for removal is stronger.

Two things must be distinguished here. The determination of whether or not a paper meets scholarly standards lies in peer-review. The double-blind peer review process passed the paper for publication in 2017. The campaign against it apparently pressured the editors to preface the paper with criticisms to the effect that in peer-reviewing it, they fucked up. This is ridiculous, unless a detailed explanation of why the editors thought the original peer-reviewers had got it wrong. Since the paper was not removed (as for example has occurred in a notorious case of Baruch Vainshelboim's critique of masking as an anti-Covid prophylaxis: the paper was removed by Elsevir). Glasgow University is something distinct from the editors: an administrative body that, in this case, deals with complaints. There is no evidence they examined the text for its putative defects. They are not a peer-review body. Since therefore it passed peer-review, and remains on that journal, there are no sufficient grounds for challenging it as a source.Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Peer review is not usually involved in retractions. Retractions and corrections being over-rare as they are, it would be a travesty to ignore them when they happen. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There has been no retraction. An editorial header was placed on the piece in that journal following anonymous complaints. What the University states is one thing, the editorial staff another. The only thing 'retracted' was the accusation, patently idiotic, that the paper contains an 'anti-Semitic conspiracy theory', which, after protests, the editors were compelled to remove. Patently idiotic because lobbying for influence is a nigh universal phenomenon; using 'pull', financial or otherwise, in media and universities (l studied one case in Japan of this) idem. However, if any one documents this with groups promoting Israel's POV (and several academic works have done this) then Israel ergo Jewish state ergo Jewish people, ergo the Prague cemetery coven of Jewish conspiracy touted in the Protocols, ergo any such remark is intrinsically anti-Semitic. People who riff off mechanically this associative chain are playing an idiotically manipulative game with no anchorage in logic, scholarship and scarce purchase on the complexities of reality. But of course, that itself is now very much part and parcel of the contemporary Zeitgeist.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The only reason for Rosenhead opinion is to clarify the eventual outcome But all Rosenhead's quote gives us is his opinion on the outcome; he uses the phrase "seems to". It's totally undue. The attempt in the thread here to second guess the peer review process is really not worth the effort: this is a student journal to start with, and other students peer review the contributions - possibly not even in their own area of specialism. The student editors change every year; the disavowal of the article by the in 2021 was by the then editors (the statement disavowing it is from the editors not from the university). I don't understand the points above about the "Prague cemetery coven"; it just seems obvious to me that a student essay disavowed by the journal's editors is a poor source and an argument over whether the university dealt with it correctly does not illuminate the topic of this article. We now have four editors arguing against inclusion and three arguing for, so it is also clear that there is no consensus for inclusion and I urge Selfstudier to revert their own inclusion unless we reach a consensus here for inclusion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• 'this is a student journal to start with, and other students peer review the contributions - possibly not even in their own area of specialism. The student editors change every year; the disavowal of the article by the in 2021 was by the then editors.'

Bob, it won'p0t work hammering away with the 'student' innuendo. ESharp has been publishing graduate and doctoral research for nigh on three decades. Students are one thing, post-doctoral and graduates are not high school kiddies. These run a journal using precisely the double-bind peer-review system used with all doctoral studies and academic work generally, unlike any other student 'rag', high school or otherwise.

An International Journal for Online Graduate Research, eSharp is an international online journal for postgraduate research in the arts, humanities, social sciences and education. Based at the University of Glasgow and run entirely by graduate students, it aims to provide a critical but supportive entry into the realm of academic publishing for emerging academics, including postgraduates and recent postdoctoral students.One of our aims is to encourage the publication of high quality postgraduate research; therefore all submitted articles are anonymously double-blind peer reviewed as part of the acceptance and feedback process. This rigorous and constructive process is designed to enhance the worth of postgraduate and postdoctoral work. eSharp also engages in training postgraduate students in the various tasks that running an academic journal requires. Enhancing both employability and the graduate experience is a key aspect of its aims and objectives.Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

RS allows for postgraduate peer-reviewed work of this kind.Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, eSharp is currently used in about a dozen of our articles, almost all being articles on very niche topics. I don't have a problem with it being used as a source in general in the absence of stronger ones, but this particular eSharp article is of obviously dreadful quality and it seems the only reason to include it would be to coatrack a tangential discussion of Collier/academic freedom issues into this article, or because it accords with a particular political POV. If a PhD student article about eugenics had been disavowed by the student editorial committee because it had been described as racist, would you want that to be cited in our WP entry on eugenics? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

'I don't understand the points above about the "Prague cemetery coven".' Well you should, if you wish to be familiar with a topic like this. It's the fantasy core of the Protocols of Zion, the cancer cell that metastasized into modern anti-Semitism.Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand the reference, I just don't understand what point you're making. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is a matter of logic. The contamination of public debate by associative thinking and its premises, as opposed to propositional definition of terms. The anti-Semitism charge, since dropped, was based on a simplistic string of the type described. (a) Israel is a Jewish state (b) Criticism of Israel therefore implies criticism of Jews, i.e. antisemitism (c) Israel (like any other country, see Mearsheimer and Walt) lobbies for its perceived interests (d) Historically, modern anti-Semitism asserted a secret meeting in Prague decided to manipulate the goy world. (e) Critics of Israel claim an Israeli lobby influences (British) public opinion (f) Ergo, in doing so, those critics are pitched as treading over a redline since the criticism could veil anti-Semitism under the guise of a protest about Israel's human rights record, since Israel is a Jewish state. (This is why so much effort has been put into the ridiculously Orwellian Working Definition of Antisemitism, a conceptual mess that posts regulative arbitration processes with no defined institutional shape over this form of public speech) The practical effect is that any statement about Israel's gross half century's old persistent violation of the standard rules of occupation in International Law (this is the consensus of most scholarly research, as opposed to newspaper hysterics) is 'suspect' , until approved (by whom?) as untinged by anti-Semitism. This string of conceptually confusing associations is dominant in the blogosphere and newspapers where logical accountability is minimal.

In context, this game was played with Jackman's paper, and the charged withdrawn. There are numerous reliable sources by respectable academics which note Israel's lobbying for its POV, and Jackman's paper gave some instances. The only remaining charge was its quality. It's not top-notch, but then any specialist in any academic field will tell you that most (provisional) research is not on the cusp, or path-breaking. Double-bind peer review doesn't require that. Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way 'is of obviously dreadful quality'. That is not established, but is what David Collier states, and he is not an authority on the topic. Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I already said I don't mind losing Rosenhead so Idk why you are still going on about that. Where are you getting this 4 to 3 from? Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I hope that figure is no allusion to the two throw-away accounts briefly active above, Joe in Australia and Grothendieck1990?Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Have removed Rosenhead as per that agreement. The three is the two of you plus ZScarpia, who are the editors I can see who have commented or edited to include; the four are me, those two, plus Chalst (actually Charles Stewart above makes five). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Those two are throwaway accounts with virtually no serious engagement with Wikipedia, and in one case an extremely exiguous profile. Given the omnipresence of socks in this area, they should not be counted, since, as with the recent developments about the JChronicle RS status, socking to stack a number's game is a risk. WP:Consensus always advises to take into account, not sheer numbers, but cogency of arguments, something neither of those editors exhibit in their respective comments. One should not 'vote' then disappear, but engage with the talk page if one wants to be taken seriously. Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"those two" and Chalst commented on the earlier version, not the uptodate corrected version I put in, am I right? Not sure what Charles Stewart comment above actually means, we aren't ignoring what the Uni said and there is no retraction or correction.Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Wait, Chalst is Charles Stewart, jeez. So right, absent some sensible opposition to what remains following the Rosenhead removal, it should stay in.Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry you're right about Chalst/Charles; my previous number was right. Only three of us have commented on the "uptodate corrected version". I'll leave this for now but I really don't think you've established consensus for including this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

To underline, as has been pointed out a few times, subject to the ARBPIA sanctions, Joe in Australia and Grothendieck1990 haven't made sufficient edits to permit them to do anything other than make constructive suggestions here. Even if they had been commenting on the updated version, their opinions cannot be used to establish consensus, which in, any case, isn't supposed to depend on counting !votes.     ←   ZScarpia   11:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Synthesis

This article heavily uses primary sources. It has pretty close to zero independent reliable sources rather than opinion pieces as sources for facts. There is a long list of organisations, but not a single reliable source cited naming these organisations as an Israel lobby. In short, synthesis and original research.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

While I'm sure that the sourcing of this article could be improved, I'm not sure what you mean by "primary sources". IMO those would be those published by the organizations that make up the "pro-Israel lobby" or whatever term you prefer to use, and those are not heavily cited in the article as far as I can tell. (t · c) buidhe 23:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It does seem to show Synthesis. The lead especially seems problematic and ought to have reliable sources. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Missing padlock

Please add {{pp-extended}} at the top of the page.197.2.244.222 (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

That's for admins, it's not usual unless there is some sort of disruption. Selfstudier (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)