I think it’s pretty clear that whether you think they’re peddling a conspiracy theory is a subjective thing. They say they’re not and to me the evidence that they’ve shown does not comprise a conspiracy theory, so I conclude they’re not. You prefer to focus on the superimposition of the flags (something that happens on news programmes all the time when discussing relations between countries) and their focus on finding out who the donors are (of course some are more secretive than others - it’s the case for every lobby everywhere, and something I find part and parcel of any serious investigation of any lobby). OK.

But I think the next question for you is - do you think that a journalistic investigation of the disparate Israel lobby in the UK could be conducted in a way that you would NOT label a conspiracy theory. If so, you have to ask whether it’d be effective. (eg: would it follow up donors who didn’t give up their info at the drop of a hat)? If not, you have to ask whether labelling things as conspiracy theories is just an irrational knee-jerk reaction, quite a defensive one. And then you have to ask why.

Behind all this of course lies the much bigger question of Israeli government behaviour. I can understand that for those who think it is entirely in line with international norms, it is uncomfortable to have it treated journalistically like a pariah state. But many disinterested observers do see it that way, and for my money, attacking the vocalisation of that perception in programmes like this is just an attack on the symptoms.

Asher

What I mean is that the evidence you give doesn’t actually point to your conclusion that they’re peddling a conspiracy theory. It points to the conclusion that they’re uncovering lobbying activity, which is what they say they’re doing, and what the disparate elements comprising the Israel Lobby say they are trying to do too.

Oborne also says the lobby deserves more scrutiny. But I presume you’re not arguing against more lobbying transparency.

Even using your quoted OED definition, Oborne says he’s not out to show that people are working towards “an evil or unlawful purpose”, or that people are doing anything “criminal, illegal or reprehensible.”

In short, just because Oborne is saying that “that there is something secretive going on,” that doesn’t mean he is saying there’s a conspiracy. There’s a big difference.

Asher

Robin Shepherd says: Asher. Thank you for your comments. But, I disagree. The documentary presented a very familiar fit with Mearsheimer and Walt’s version of events in the United States. They too were adamant that they were not pushing conspiracy theories. But they were. Oborne and Jones make much play over the allegations of secretive Jewish donors while their own documentary makes it clear that there is no secrecy. The allegations are clearly irrational. And the effect is to implant in the public mind the notion of a malign and disloyal cabal of Jews working behind the scenes to undermine Britain’s interests in favour of Israel’s. That fits pretty closely to the traditional anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, a conclusion which is buttressed with reference to the accusation of disloyalty to the British state. What message do you think that the (endless) superimposition of the Israeli star of David onto the Union Jack was meant to convey?

Robin Shepherd says: Thank you for your comment. Constructively critical remarks are always welcome. But I think I make it clear why they are peddling a conspiracy theory.