Talk:Jewish Labour Movement

Founded in 2004 as a successor to Poale Zion

Welcome to the Jewish Labour Movement, an archived webpage by Lousie Ellman from the Jewish Labour Movement website which appears to date back to 2006: "Founded in 2004 as the successor to Poale Zion, a pioneering organisation within the Labour Zionist family, we continue to demonstrate our commitment to Poale Zion’s long-standing ideals in a setting appropriate for the twenty-first century. ... In July 2004 our launch at the House of Commons was a highly successful event, with the Israeli Ambassador and the Foreign Office Minister responsible for Middle East matters as guest speakers."

Electronic Intifada - Asa Winstanley - Jewish Labour Movement was refounded to fight Corbyn, 07 March 2019.

    ←   ZScarpia   18:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The Electronic Intifada is considered generally unreliable as a source for Wikipedia. Sources which describe the JLM as a continuation of Poale Zion include the New Statesman, Jewish News, The Times (in 2006 and 2016 (Times of Israel and the party's definitive history. Some sources describe it as a "successor" to Poale Zion, but this doesn't seem incompatible with the group being a continuation of the original Poale Zion. I can't find any reliable sources which say that they're separate or distinct groups. Ralbegen (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The source I provided is a primary source from the JLM website from a founding member. I cannot read the Times source you quoted, you have to subscribe. The fact that there are so few actual readily available sources (until recently) suggesting they are the same organisation speaks volumes as to a change in policy. You appear to be obstructing a valid change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westpier66 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the lead could recognise the significance of the rebranding and policy change. Sources talk of a change in policy with a focus on the UK rather than Israel. There appear to be concurrent changes within the global Zionist movement. The equivalent US organisation changed, too. Also Poale Zion no longer exists. How about

The Jewish Labour Movement was launched in 2004 as the direct successor to Poale Zion (Great Britain), founded in 1903. The new name came with a greater focus on British Jewry rather than Israel. First affiliated in 1920, it is one of the oldest socialist societies affiliated to the Labour Party.[3] It is also affiliated with the World Labour Zionist Movement (the left-wing faction within the World Zionist Organization),...

Jontel (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems unnecessarily confusing to describe it as being launched more than eighty years after it affiliated. The current text of the article, The Jewish Labour Movement, known as Poale Zion (Great Britain) from 1903 to 2004..., is fine and supported by reliable sources. We prefer secondary sources as a matter of policy. I've always found it to be the case that it's easier to find more recent news sources because newspaper and magazine websites don't go back especially far, and recency doesn't mean that reliable secondary sources are wrong. Ralbegen (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine has saved copies of JLM material which is linked to from its old homepage, such as this copy of the Spring 2005 Jewish Vanguard, the journal of the JLM. It says: "The Jewish Labour Movement, launched last year, incorporates Poale Zion-Labour Zionists founded in 1904, two years before the Labour RepresentationCommittee was formed in 1906, from which emerged Britain’s Labour Party,celebrating it’s centenary next year. We have been affiliated to the Labour Party as asocialist society since 1920." It appears that a new legal entity was created in 2004, which is a bigger change than a renaming. Note the list of aims and objectives. Other Vanguards are linked to here.     ←   ZScarpia   11:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

On the 2004 relaunch, the article would, I think, benefit from more detail on, 'In 2004, Poale Zion in Britain rebranded itself as the Jewish Labour Movement, as various international factions splintered.'(Jewish News - source in article) This suggests that international alignments were significant in the rebranding. Jontel (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not very keen on the use of the word "rebranding" as it could have multiple meanings. The word "renamed" is inadequate as it is clear from the old JLM literature that a more substantial change was carried out. The wording is supposed to reflect all reliable sources, not just ones which reflect a preferred wording. This Times article, for instance, refers to "the Jewish Labour Movement, an officially affiliated party grouping which was founded in 2004."

I would be happy with the wording suggested above: "The Jewish Labour Movement was launched in 2004 as the direct successor to Poale Zion (Great Britain), founded in 1903." Also, I'm happy with the sentence currently in the article which reads: "Poale Zion (Great Britain) was relaunched as the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) in 2004." What I want rewritten is the Lead, which currently reads, "The Jewish Labour Movement, known as Poale Zion (Great Britain) from 1903 to 2004 ... ," and the infobox, which reads, "Formation 1903 as Poale Zion (Great Britain); renamed Jewish Labour Movement in 2004." Any formulation which uses words such as 'launched', 'relaunched', 'founded', 'refounded' or 'succeeded' would be Ok with me.

    ←   ZScarpia   03:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in the absence of more documentation/ testimony, I would be happy to change it to relaunch in the lead and infobox, based on sources. That seems to capture the change best. Launched+direct successor would be next best. Let's see what other editors think. Jontel (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Here, {https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/92-per-cent-of-jewish-labour-movement-back-owen-smith-for-party-leadership-1.62590} JLM's UK branch is a successor to the Poale Zion movement, which was founded to promote the Zionist ideal within Labour in the early part of the 20th century., JC call JLM a "successor" to Poale Zion. Interesting to see JLM (UK) being described as a branch, with the other branch presumably being the Israeli Labour Party. Jontel (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.     ←   ZScarpia   11:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

In my second-tier comment above I listed the reliable sources I could find that described the relationship between Poale Zion and the Jewish Labour Movement, which generally describe the JLM as a continuation of Poale Zion. The status quo best reflects reliable source coverage and should stand. Ralbegen (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding sources, you will know that the JLM have been attacking the Labour Party leadership for four years, so there is a lot of spin. The official history seems to omit the period altogether, which is curious and even suspicious. Some of your sources: Jewish News and the New Statesman, are written by JLM officials so are not reliable sources. The Times of Israel/ Philpot is a highly partial account, and he has a history with British Jewry and right wing Labour. The 2016 Times talks of rebranding, and it is clearly more than that. I cannot access the 2018 Times article but they will not be doing rigorous research on the event for articles today, which always attack the Labour leadership. Nothing you have found goes into detail on what changed and why in 2004.

I can certainly accept some continuity, though what that was is not entirely clear. As a source, I have more confidence in their own journal, written at the time to their own members, referenced in the article. It says "The Jewish Labour Movement, launched last year, incorporates Poale Zion-Labour Zionists founded in 1904" It sounds more than a simple name change. Confusingly, it then says "We have been affiliated to the Labour Party as a socialist society since 1920.", asserting the continuity you mention. Sugarman's 2016 Jewish Chronicle article says "JLM's UK branch is a successor to the Poale Zion movement, which was founded to promote the Zionist ideal within Labour in the early part of the 20th century." So, a leading weekly publication written by and for British Jews is happy to use the word, successor, albeit without any details. Louise Ellman, then chair of JLM, also called it a successor in 2006. I have added this reference. {https://web.archive.org/web/20070210153102/http://www.jlm.org.uk/cgi-bin/sitetools.cgi?task=servepage&id=1} It would be helpful to see the Vanguards for 2003 or 2004 or coverage of the event at the time.

What are the options? We can say rebrand or rename, but launched and successor is what the organisation said at the time. I will change it to relaunch, as proposed by ZScarpia which I hope we can accept as a compromise. Jontel (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

2016 restructuring

Just moved the interesting material below from ZScarpia here - hope that is OK. Coverage of both the 2004 and 2016 step changes could certainly benefit from more detail/ background and it is probably easier to discuss them in separate sections. Jontel (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Another point of interest in the Electronic Intifada article linked to above ("Jewish Labour Movement was refounded to fight Corbyn") is the description of the contents of two transcripts of unused Aljazeera footage (the second transcript is also discussed here).
On the first transcript, the article says: "It indicates that the dormant Jewish Labour Movement was revived by political allies of Israel as a weapon against Corbyn, the left and the wider Palestine solidarity movement. Jewish Labour Movement chair Jeremy Newmark told a members only function on 13 September 2016 that “a bunch of us sat in a coffee shop in Golders Green” around September 2015 to “talk about re-forming the JLM to do something with it,” the transcript of unused footage shot by Al Jazeera shows. The 2015 plan to reconstitute the Jewish Labour Movement came against the backdrop of what Newmark described as “the rise of Jeremy Corbyn” and “Bernie Sanders in the states.” ... In the same transcript, the group’s youth officer Liron Velleman said that the event was the “first Young Jewish Labour Movement event in 32 years, potentially more than that.”"
On the second transcript, the article says: "Ella Rose, then the Jewish Labour Movement’s full-time director, explains to Al Jazeera’s undercover reporter that the dormant Jewish Labour Movement had been “run by Louise Ellman who obviously is great but is also an MP and didn’t have time to run the sort of political operation that was needed.” Ellman stepped aside in 2015, “and a sort of new guard came in – Jeremy [Newmark], Peter [Mason], Adam [Langleben], that crowd – and they sort of thought at some point, okay, we’re gonna hire someone.’”"
    ←   ZScarpia   12:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Any material in the article should be supported by reliable sources, whereas Electronic Intifada is considered generally unreliable. Ralbegen (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The Electronic Indifada articles are referred to in this Jonathan Cook article in MR Online magazine which is cited in the current WP article. Of course, they are a reliable source for their own content. The MR Online article was originally published on TruePublica and is a cut down version of an article published on Consortium News, Mondoweiss and Jonathan Cook's own site. The earliest reference to the JLM on the Times of Israel site is 2017, which is probably an indicator of the change in its activities after 2015. Also an indicator of its previous moribundity, the JLM website carries an article about how, in 2017, it held its first one-day conference for 100 years.     ←   ZScarpia   22:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

For the Lefties:

• Morning Star - Peter Kirker - Enough already with this zionist frenzy, 04 April 2018: With a little bit of help from the Israeli embassy, as revealed by an Al-Jazeera sting last year, broadcast in four episodes as The Lobby and still available to watch online, the zionist tendencies have established a solid bridgehead in the Labour Party through the affiliated Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Virtually unknown until Corbyn, a long-time campaigner for Palestinian rights, was elected to the Labour leadership, the JLM has sometimes played down the uncritically pro-Israel flavour of its ethos. But its claim to decades-long affiliation to the Labour Party rests on it being just a rebranding of Poale Zion, whose name spoke for itself. British Poale Zion had in fact been defunct for several years when JLM emerged from its ashes. Moreover, and in potential conflict with its status as a Labour affiliate, the movement is also affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation through which, according to the UN, Israel funds a significant element of its illegal settlements programme.
• Weekly Worker - Tony Greenstein - Enemy of working class, 29 September 2016: In 1920 Poale Zion, the ‘Workers of Zion’, became an affiliated society of the Labour Party. In 2004, realising how toxic its name had become, PZ rebranded itself as the ‘Jewish Labour Movement’. But, as Jesus observed, one should beware of false prophets in sheep’s clothing who are in reality “ravening wolves”. Even its name, like everything else about the JLM, is a lie. The organisation is Zionist, not Jewish. That is why many non-Jewish supporters of Progress1 have joined, whereas Jewish anti-racists and anti-Zionists would not touch it with a barge pole. There was a Jewish Labour Movement once, but today’s JLM is a mockery of that movement.

    ←   ZScarpia   02:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

EHRC submission

As there appears to have been quite a bit of edit warring over these sentences, I thought it best to open a discussion here on the talk page for people to iron out their differences.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

These detailed allegations are unproven and their signicance is unclear. As there is an ongoing investigation, perhaps we should wait for the outcome of the investigation before including such detailed material. Moreover, using selected examples adds further bias to what is a long running campaign by the JLM and others agaist the party leadership. Further, the detail is about the Labour Party, not the JLM pr se, the subject of the article. Also, the fact the the JLM prompted the investigation is already included in the article. For all of these reasons, I propose that the paragraph be dropped. Jontel (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I would include the first of the three sentences there now, perhaps with all of the refs that are currently at the end of the second sentence. The detail of the contents of the dossier are not relevant to this article, but rather to the Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article, where I would urge inclusion of the three sentence text.BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Multiple high-quality sources support the allegations, which involve prominent public figures. WP:PUBLICFIGURE In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. The criterion for removal, lack of multiple high quality sources, does not apply here. The sources have been provided. The article addresses the Jewish Labor Movement's relationship with the Labour Party. These allegations are relevant to those. The other statement by the editor above, Moreover, using selected examples adds further bias to what is a long running campaign by the JLM and others agaist the party leadership. is tendentious and off-topic. What bias is this user referring to? Bias in the article? We do not pick sides here, we go by what reliable sources report. If this editor believes its our job to omit what the sources have reported to "even the scales," then I'd suggest a review of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a concerted effort to remove any mention of an apparent dossier regarding Labour Party internal activities containing allegations of anti-semitism. If this material were unsourced or not relevant, I would support its removal. However, it is obviously well-placed in the context of the article. Multiple high-quality sources are provided. I have not seen any justification thus far for removing this content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The proposal is not to remove 'any mention' of the submission/ dossier, just the detail. The justifications for removal are, first: that the reported allegations against individual Labour Party members and branches collated by the JLM are at present unproven and from anonymous complainants. There is no way at this stage, prior to the EHRC judgement, of knowing whether or not they are true or the circumstances, so it is unfair on the Labour Party and those members involved to report the detail at this stage. It is not the case that multiple high quality/ reliable published sources provide evidence of the truth of the specific allegations: they are simply reporting them as allegations. No-one is suggesting that the allegations are not in the submission. Secondly, the allegations listed are selective, cherrypicking the worst ones from a large submission and so giving a false impression of it. Thirdly, the allegations are about the Labour Party, not the JLM. It should be sufficient in this article on the JLM to mention the role of the JLM in making the submission without including selected specific allegations.Jontel (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of material on the EHRC inquiry in "Anti-Semitism and the Labour Party" (2019, Verso, Jamie Stern-Weiner (ed). It points out that the inquiry isn't into antisemitism as such, but to investigate whether the Equality Act has been breached. Under the Equality Act (and British law in general), there is actually no definition of antisemitism. The EHRC would be stepping beyond its terms of reference if it did anything other than investigate what may be termed antisemitism relative to the Act. If the CAA case included complaints made by JLM members in John Ware's Panorama documentary, as articles on the JVL website showed, at least some of those were questionable.     ←   ZScarpia   13:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the purpose of the EHRC inquiry, from "Bad News for Labour" (2019), Greg Philo, p111:

"In this chapter I examine two closely interrelated and particularly significant manifestations of the criticism levelled at Labour for its handling of its perceived problem of antisemitism with a view to drawing some conclusions about their consequences for the Party. First, the eventual adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) ‘working definition’1 of antisemitism, a move Labour was put under severe pressure to take in mid-2018. Second, charges levelled against Labour for institutional antisemitism, which have been formalised in the shape of an investigation launched by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on 28 May 2019 (Sky News, 28 May 2019) to determine whether ‘the Party unlawfully discriminated against, harassed or victimised people because they are Jewish’. This followed representations made to the EHRC by the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) and the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA)."

    ←   ZScarpia   14:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Issues with citing footnote 59

While it is probably acceptable for the claim made, it makes such other outrageous claims about BLP without clear evidence that I would be in favor of not using it. Tbh, the whole sentence can be stricken, as I do not believe that it is relevant here (Wikipedia isn’t LinkedIn, after all) FortunateSons (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)