Dawkins and the Jews: a reply

A little over a week ago I linked to an extraordinary statement made by Richard Dawkins about the power of the Jews.

In case you missed it here it is again:

When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.

The result of my post was tens of thousands of hits and hundreds of comments from around the world.

I want to respond here to two of the main strands of thought in these comments, because they pop up remarkably often whenever remarks of the Dawkins kind are made.

One type of response was that Dawkins was clearly correct. How could I deny that American Jews influences that country's foreign policy, making it more supportive of Israel?

And, of course, that's quite right. I can't, and don't, deny it. Like any group of American citizens, supporters of Israel, organise themselves into a lobby and clearly, sometimes their campaign work is successful.

But Dawkins goes much, much further than that.  He says the "Jewish lobby" (not supporters of Israel), "more or less monopolise American foreign policy" (not sometimes influence it).

Interestingly the Professor doesn't restrict this characterisation to policy on the Middle East. This either means he believes that Jews monopolise policy on all foreign matters (say action on North Korea) or, more charitably, that he makes the common error of considering foreign policy towards Israel so important that no other foreign policy is worth mentioning.

This is not merely a pedantic point. Let's take policy on Iraq, for instance. Does Dawkins hold the view that the monopoly of foreign policy held by the Jewish lobby extends to policy on the Iraq war? And his failure to distinguish between Israel and Jews is important here too, since lots of Jews supported the Iraq war, while Israel itself was more worried about Iran.

And, of course, most of the important architects of the Iraq war (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and so forth) weren't Jewish.

As a scientist, Dawkins surely can't approve the following statement - Jews support Israel, American foreign policy supports Israel, therefore the Jewish lobby controls American foreign policy. Yet this seems all he's left with.

The second type of comment was even more fascinating. Over and over again, I was told off for "attacking" Dawkins as being "anti-semitic". It was outrageous that one couldn't make remarks about Jewish influence without this horrible accusation being made.

Why was this fascinating?

Because I didn't accuse the Professor of anti-semitism. I just noted his comments and said I found it frightening that he could believe that. Which I do.

It is pretty standard this. A comment is made about Israel or Jews and when that comment is questioned the originator or their defenders says: "Ooh, don't get all shirty and come the politically correct with me. Don't accuse me of anti-semitism every time I criticise you".

But they haven't been accused of anti-semitism at all. No one even mentioned it. They are using the idea that they are being accused of anti-semitism as a cover for insupportable remarks.

And that is the case here.

I don't know Richard Dawkins, but I think it is unlikely he is anti-semitic. Some of his best friends are Jewish, I am sure. He is anti-Judaism, but that's quite a different thing.

Yet that makes his remarks worse, not better.

If the Professor was merely prejudiced then his suggestion that Jews monopolise American foreign policy could be lightly dismissed as another manifestation of his hatred. I wouldn't be, as I said I was, frightened.

Instead I am faced with a lucid, liberal intellectual lending his support, apparently through careful sifting of the evidence (but without any justification I can see), to a contention supported by Nazi Jew haters. And that, that I do find frightening.

Comments

[Ripsnorter]

Try your complicated arguments and uni-debating points with the fashionably anti-Semitic 'liberal' lefties and the ultra right.
Nonsense Daniel nonsense, on this subject you have to be on one side or the other, your opponents understand that YOU are the one who refuses to 'get it'.

[SH]

I am a great admirer of Dawkins' work but was very shocked to read what he had said. It is basically Jewish conspiracy stuff, not far removed from Mel Gibson's drunken ravings (I like Gibson's work as well!) Most charitably, I can think that sometimes heros have blind spots too.

[Eamonn]

I'd say that wondering whether Dawkins is really a racist in some kind of core, metaphysical way is a bit of a waste of
time, what matters is whether what he said is antisemitic or not.

It's reminiscent of the controversy surrounding
Luis Aragonés' comments last
year about Thierry Henry being a "negro de mierda". His defenders
all said something like "OK, it wasn't the best choice of words, but no one can possibly
believe that he - model of professionalism, personal friend and mentor of various black players etc, - is racist."

Again what does it matter what he really "is", the meaning of what he said is pretty clear

[Stuart]

I don't see why you are frightened by his comments. They seem like the sloppy logic of a man in full on rant mode to me. I am, like him, an atheist. But I don't always agree with some of the points he makes in his rants. His point, as was made clear numerous times in the comments, was that the influence of certain religious lobbies (he settled on Jews, but he could easily and more credibly chosen evangelical Christians) was out of all proportion to their numbers in the wider community. You ignored this in your reply, choosing instead to semi-justify your 'fears', without bothering to explain what they are.

The implication of your stated fear was clear to me and others: Dawkins slags of Jews for having too much influence, ergo Dawkins has signed up to the agenda of the various anti-semitic nutjobs still in circulation. Therefore Dawkins (a man who you clearly have trouble with) can be dismissed as a raving anti-semite whose desparation to prop up his arguments has led him into the arms of conspiracy theorists.

It won't do. Either explain what it is that frightens you, or don't mention it. Don't leave it as innuendo. Put up or shut up...

[Ian]

In my view, you have missed the weight and emphasis of Dawkins statement. He doesn't say "Jews control American forign policy". He says that "as far as many people can see" they more or less monopolise American forign policy. His real point is that Jews as a "belief" group exercise a demonstrably greater influence on US policy than atheists do as a "belief" group. As far as I can detect in history no group of people have inflicted suffering on another group in the name of furthering a non-belief in god and that is why Dawkins suggests that the influence of atheists would be beneficial in foreign policy. As far as I can see he is spot on!

[Simon de la Vega]

I find this quite interesting. It seems like another case of saying something that can be interpreted in different ways, and because of this lots of drama is thrown about. It almost seems like using the ontological argument to prove Jews run the US foreign policy.
---
Jews support Israel
The US also supports Israel
THEREFORE Jews must run the US
---
I find this quite hard to take seriously.

[Danny Kuperberg]

Dawkins as a highly respected scientist, should temper his statements with more judgement and care.
I note recent criticism of 'The God Delusion' by the two key leaders of the two monotheistic religions he so derides in his book. The Archbishop of Canterbury claims he 'may be a good scientist but is not a good philosopher' and the Chief Rabbi calls his non-fiction an 'angry' book.

I couldn't agree more with both, and not because I am particularly religious or an ardent atheist. These religious leaders' responses highlight how Dawkins' recent comments have shown him up to be so clumsy when he moves onto the unfamiliar grounds of philosophy, theology, and in this case, politics:

Repeatedly, Dawkins makes sweeping generalisations about religions and religious attitudes built on highly specific case studies and biblical extracts.
In this, his latest comment about the Jewish lobby, I sense that he is genuinely an admirer of the influence, energy and persuasiveness of such a highly organised lobby group as those Americans, Jews AND gentiles, mobilising support for Israel.
However his naivety is breathtaking, for he equates a 'Jewish lobby' with automatic support for not only a right-wing Middle-east agenda (support for Israel by its very nature), but also ALL foreign policy. I cannot imagine that Dawkins won't now backtrack from these comments, for to keep digging and justify Jews controlling all arms of a superpower's foreign policy does smack of the Nazi stereotyping of the Jews as forming an extremely powerful cabal, so mysteriously powerful that noone could possibly explain the source of its influence other than by its adherents' Jewish religion and racial background.

Firstly, the majority of US Jewish voters are Democrat supporters, and even if this was not the case, how can Dawkins characterise a group in this way as 'monopolising' power when there are so many competing special interest groups in Washington?
In other words what is it about this Jewish lobby that makes them so influential and special? It would be interesting to hear the answer from Dawkins' own lips.
If you ask me, much of it comes down to boring old hard work and passion.

I suspect that as a zealot for atheism, this statement was his rhetorical way of drumming up support for a cause that he believes many US citizens are afraid to voice in the current climate of increasing Christian fundamentalism. It is a recurring theme in his book to encourage the voice of the rational, cool-headed, non-superstitious, non-God fearing American Joe to speak up. After all, it is his views that are so frequently shouted down by bible-bashing priests and right-wing talk show hosts.

However, I'm sure many people reading these latest comments would acknowledge that as the self-appointed 'People's Champion of Atheism', Dawkins certainly should have measured his words more carefully than to equate his supporters' secular aspirations with his notional Jewish lobby...

[Steve]

It seems RD over-stated the case; but I think if you put 'middle-east' in place of 'foreign' it may be closer to what he intended.

As to those who would deny that - um, what *is* the explanation for American policy towards Israel? Or does anyone want to claim that it is no different from US foreign policy in, oh, sub-saharan Africa?

[MaryCunningham]

There has not been an upsurge in anti-Semitism in Europe according to Pew Attitude Surveys,although most Europeans are now more aware of the power of the Israel lobby in the US.

I went to a talk by Chris Patton where he urged the formulation of a common European Middle Eastern policy and he was asked what was the point, when America’s AIPAC lobby was far more influential than the European Union
would ever be. His answer was: “Well, we still have to try” which I found unsatisfactory. The dilemma still holds. As far as US policy in the ME is concerned, AIPAC determines just about everything, which can’t be good for the region, the US, or the world as a whole.

Anyway, at one point in the reign of George II an onlooker could be forgiven in thinking neoconservatives (defined by David Brooks—one of them—as Jewish conservatives) were *the* dominant group in all US foreign policy. This was patently false, but their muscular, Manichean view of the world (“with us or against us”, good vs evil) chimed well with the worldview of their Evangelical allies and did seem to prevail everywhere.

The participation of the latter is probably what raised the hackles of professional atheists like Dawkins and accounts for the eruption of anti * Christian* (especially Catholic) vitriol, inexplicable to this Catholic as the Pope had opposed the Iraq invasion and the threat to the secular west was found in Muslim fundamentalists not their Christian counterparts.

As the debacle of Iraq unfolded the prevalence of this view waned and reality-based politics returned.

Dawkin’s terminology on all this is clumsy, but if the above chronology is correct, he is not anti-Semitic. Nor has been a upsurge in anti-Semitism. Most of the ire of western atheists remains directed against western religious, especially evangelical but also Catholics. Pew Attitude Surveys consistently show Western Europeans respect their Jewish countrymen. (This is not how the same view European Muslims.)

[Tim]

Come off it Daniel. The insinuation that Dawkins is anti-semitic was very clear in your post, even if you didn't have the balls to say it explicitly.

If it hadn't been the main purpose of your comment then you wouldn't have had a comment to make.

[Luís Ferreira]

In response to the commments from both professor Dawkins and Ian, atheists have conducted the most violent persecutions in the late century, Stalin's purges in the U.S.S.R. and the Cultural Revolution in the Peoples Republic of China.
I say this although i am an atheist myself.

[Daniel Finkelstein]

Tim says: "Come off it Daniel. The insinuation that Dawkins is anti-semitic was very clear in your post, even if you didn't have the balls to say it explicitly. If it hadn't been the main purpose of your comment then you wouldn't have had a comment to make."

This is hilarious.

Here is Tim's logic. Just because Finkelstein disagrees with Dawkins, he shouldn't call him anti-semitic. But, the logic continues, the only possible reason Finkelstein could have for criticising Dawkins is that he is anti semitic. So by criticising him Finkelstein is calling him anti-semitic.

Er, no Tim.

His comments are wrong. I find them frightening. I didn't call him an anti-semite. Perhaps it would have made your life easier if I had. But I didn't. Live with it.

[Kim Hammill]

Fascinating? Dawkins is frightening, fascist and foul!

[Tony Francis]

Dawkins implies that atheists, as a group have a monolithic view toward US foreign policy. If they could only organize, they could effect this policy. This is the silliness of his position. Why would atheists have a uniform view of foreign policy? No other religious group, or labor union, or any other group does. So why would atheists?

[Sam Pepys MP]

Dawkins' arguments always threaten to turn from attacks on Religion to attacks on culture. Many cultures (if not all) are based on religion in some way. So he was always in danger of veering into anti-semitic territory.
Personally I think the Prof and Extreme Zionism are both bonkers.

[Clothilde Simon]

To summarize: Dawkins is a good scientist (although not up to FRS level). When he tries to talk about anything else, he is likely to make elementary logical blunders.

I think we knew that already.

[Steve]

Daniel, you say you think it's unlikely Dawkins is anti-Semitic. If so, surely the most likely scenario is that he got carried away with his rant and mis-spoke, as all of us are prone to do on occasion, casting a greater generalisation than was intended.

So given your own acknowledged scepticism about Dawkins's anti-Semitism, is it the fact that he mis-spoke that you find so frightening? (frightening seems quite a strong emotion to feel)

If not, what precisely is it that frightens you? Yes, we've gathered that it's the fact that Dawkins said this that you find frightening. But you're not going one further and answering - why? (Particularly given you doubt his anti-Semitism)

Is it that conspiracy theorists and real anti-Semites might latch onto the great Professor's words? Is it that you fear his subconscious might be anti-Semitic even if he doesn't realise it? Why do you find it frightening?

Sorry for all these questions but please elaborate further. So far I'm inclined to agree with others here that you appear to be hiding behind your words.

[Lisa]

I think it's about time atheists like Richard Dawkins got off their high horse. I am sick and tired, as a practising Jew, having to defend my beliefs and lifestyle to atheists. I harm no other man by believing in G-d; I do not expect other people to share my beliefs and nor do I impose them on other people or bombard them with questions as to why they don't believe in G-d. In discussions, they always point out the wrong that religions have caused, without even considering all the good that has come from various religions: universities, charitable giving, Judeo-Christian ethics which are the basis of all Western legal systems. Further, they always argue that religion has caused so many wars, but then so has nationalism and patriotism, and, as set out above, atheism.

The comments above about there not being a rise in anti-semitism are wrong. There has been a rise, mostly because of people (like Richard Dawkins) failing to recognise the difference between being Jewish and being pro-Israel. You can be both, and you can be one or the other. Also, being pro-Israel does not mean that you're anti-Palestinian or anti-peace. And yes, the US does appear to be more pro-Israel, but that's because, by and large, Europe is consistently anti-Israel, largely without justification, continuously applying a double standard.

[interested by stander]

I am not Jewish and I am no friend of Israel but the idea that "the Jewish lobby" "monopolises" , really, just think about that, "monopolises" American foreign policy is anti- semitic. There, I have said it.

Dawkins is

1 intemperate and

2 has apponinted himself as an expert on aspects of history and our curent situation geo-politically.

[Steve]

Tony wrote:
"Dawkins implies that atheists, as a group have a monolithic view toward US foreign policy."
------------

Come now Tony, he clearly means no such thing. The only "monolithic view" is the shared absence of belief in deities - he knows this and has stated it often enough - and his central point is simply that it's this lack of religious motivation that might be a good thing.

He's not suggesting there will be a "uniform view of foreign policy". Simply a better approach through the absence of religion.

Don't forget the many quotes like this one...

"I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did. And then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.' And I did."
- GW Bush, Aug 2003

[Alfonso Parelli]

Atheism is not a belief-system. There is no banner behind which Atheists could unite politically. These are the kind of schoolboy errors Dawkins is prone to making. As an atheist he is probably opposed to Jews, Muslims and Christians having political block influence. So nothing worrysome for little 'ol Danny Finkelstein to cry over. Awwwwwwwww.

[Nick Wibberley]

The Jewishness of Israel is less important than the fact that the majority of Israelis are quasi-European rather than Arab. Israel is a Western virus in a Middle Eastern body. Israel does not influence US foreign policy for the simple reason that it is itself a part of that policy.

[MaryCunningham]

Lisa:

The Pew Research Centre polled European citizens in various western countries in both 1991 and 2004; at the time conservative American pundits were bombarding us with charges of "European anti-semites".

Pew found:

"Despite concerns about rising anti-Semitism in Europe, there are no indications that anti-Jewish sentiment has increased over the past decade. Favorable ratings of Jews are actually higher now in France, Germany and Russia than they were in 1991.

Nonetheless, Jews are better liked in the U.S. than in Germany and Russia. As is the case with Americans, Europeans hold much more negative views of Muslims than of Jews."

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206

Since then, with several failed and one successful bombings in London and elsewhere sentiment against Muslims has hardened. Pew has researched American sentiment about Islam but, so far, not European, although maybe YouGov has something.

[Steve]

Alfonso - Dawkins is quite well aware that "atheism is not a belief-system".

He is also quite well aware that "there is no banner behind which Atheists could unite politically".

He has made these points himself time and time again.

These are not his schoolboy errors. They are errors being incorrectly attributed to him by his critics who, more often than not, have only delved lightly into his writing (if at all) before misrepresenting his words.

He is not suggesting the banner that unites atheists is anything other than a shared lack of religion. Nowhere does he suggest (or imply) that there will be agreement amongst atheists as to the specifics of government, ideology, foreign policy, etc. He is simply calling for people with this shared lack of religion to stand up and be counted, because he thinks atheists are under-represented at the highest levels.

[James Gallagher]

Why are Jewish people always so sensitive. Every word said has to be so carefully considered less it is anti semitic. Dawkin,s was not being anti semitic. I took his meaning quite simply as look at how powerful a relativly small pressure group such as the Jews are when well organised. Athiests, much more numerous, could make a huge impact if they let their views be known.
And I fully agree this would be of huge benefit to mankind. All religions are a curse on mankind. The 21st century, despite our vast scientific knowledge and understanding of man,s origin is still dominated by the delusional ideas of a few men who lived in thousands of years ago.

[Tony Francis]

Friend Steve, I guess I am at a loss of just what the atheist agenda might be. It appears that they have driven all religion out of the public discourse in the US. There can be no religious symbols on public property, no discussion of religion in the forming of laws, no mention of Christmas in public schools, etc. etc. And when one talks about the influence of the Jewish lobby on US foreign policy, what are we to conclude RD is talking about? References to G. Bush's religious statements are really irrelevant to the argument. It would appear that US foreign policy has been exceptionally void of any religious thought and quite Utilitarian from the beginning. The US has supported corrupt dictators, repressive regimes, etc. simply because someone thought it was in the "national interest" at the time. Hardly religiously motivated.

[Robert H. Olley]

Science education in this country is, so to speak, going to hell in a handbasket. Physics is suffering particularly badly in this country, since A-level physics has for years been turning out "formula monkeys" who can only think in equations.

Meanwhile, the public debate on climate change is filled with uninformed babble, whether from Guardianistas who support Al Gore or Telegrapharians who oppose him. Each side is worse the the other, if that's mathematically possible.

And what has the Professor of Public Awareness of Science been doing all this time? Ranting against anything that smells of religion, as if he were the ghost of T.H.Huxley called forth in a seance (he is SO 19th century!)

[Delilah]

Shoot, if Dawkins isn't prepared to explain the statement (which is obviously what you really want, but he won't) then you're stuffed, as far as working out what he really meant. He could be secretly anti-semetic. He could have been quoted out of context. He could have been carried away in the moment. So what? It wouldn't be the first time his fundamentalist zeal led him to sweep messy colourful reality into tidy black-and-white. He's already insulted the Catholics, Hindus, Baptists, Mormons, and scores of others - now Judaism too, poor dears. Move on. I find your endless solicitation of anti-semitic and zionist "comment" on this non-statement in order to flog your blog distasteful.

[Brian Lynchehaun]

If you did not intend to imply that Dawkins is an anti-semite, then you would not have finished your column with:

"Instead I am faced with a lucid, liberal intellectual lending his support, apparently through careful sifting of the evidence (but without any justification I can see), to a contention supported by Nazi Jew haters. And that, that I do find frightening."

So, Godwin's Law has been invoked. But you're *not* calling him an anti-semite. Just associating him with Nazis.

Fallacy, Ad Hominem: Poisoning the Well.

[anthony faulkner]

I'm surprised at your surprise. Logical rigour doesn't seem to count much in Dawkins' views ; far more important is to remain best-selling head of the herd by feeding populist prejudices and offering scapegoats.

[Bonnie]

Wow. Daniel, you've just compared Richard Dawkins to the Nazis. But you are not calling him anti-semitic. No. It is our own prejudice which would lead us to make that assumption. You are just pointing out your horror that he shares his opinions with 'Nazi-hating Jews' (as opposed to the Nazis who really liked Jews??) Can you really not see how sensationalist you are being?

He clearly misspoke and had you asked him his opinion, before implying (yes, you did) that he was anti-semitic, he would have happily clarified that he feels that the Zionist lobby is fairly powerful and he wants that for Athiest groups. This is from a Christian who thinks Dawkins is an idiot but (unlike you) doesn't have the luxury of character slurs, half-truths and overreactions.

[Hali]

What about the "liberal leftie" Jewish lobby who keep pushing for an end to the occupation and a just peace for all - and who are thoroughly ignored not only by our lawmakers but by our news media?

[olympian]

Lisa, you are wrong about the basis of Western legal systems. They owe far more to Roman law and Anglo-Saxon Common Law than to religious systems of thought. This is hardly a negative feature. As for your analysis of why religion should not be criticized, we should remember that it has historically divided communities, caused wars, and generally been a very negative part of our existence. As for your broad-brush statements about Europe and Israel - perhaps we fail to sympathize with a state that has abused human rights, practised torture, and stolen land from its neighbours. Sorry if our dislike for this sort of behaviour upsets you, but can you seriously defend Israel's record in these matters? Israel has lived off the Holocaust for too long as a means of covering up its shoddy behaviour. When it begins to resemble a civilized state, then we might find it more congenial.

[Tori]

As an American I find it shocking that anyone across the pond actually "believes" that Jews monopolize our politics. I suggest you come on over & discover that we are such a mixed polyglot of cultures & backgrounds that it would be difficult for anyone to gain control over our nation. Finally altho we profess a spiritual side - a huge Christian influence - we have a fundamental horror of religion driving our policies - it must come from our past where we fled Europe - we hoped to make this a country where separation of church and state were paramount. It remains that way to this day...so if we fear it, run from it, and create a whole country based on fear of religious control... since when did the Jews slip in & gain control w/o anyone ever noticing it? As to our support of Israel..? Thats comes from our CHRISTIAN belief that we are supposed to support Israel... we'd support them .. no matter what .. they have absolutely no sway there. Funny how that worked out.. we Americans ... a Christian nation under God.. believe that God wants us to support Israel... so where do the Jews come into play? I have no clue...except they benefit from Gods plan. Even if they wanted us to get lost... we'd still poke our nose into it... because we think we are supposed to do that for them no matter what they said to gainsay us.

[Krispy]

Dear David, would I be mistaken in thinking that your existance as a commentator depends on polarising issues around their 'Jewish / anti-Jewish' content ? Forgive me for thinking , with all due respect, that the Jews are a microscopically small percentage of the world's population, and the importnce of their issues are strictly pro-rata.

[David Coussens]

First Chomsky, then Norman Finkelstein, then Edward Said, then the late Israel Shahak, now Dawkins. It's now clear, all my favourite intellectuals are officially anti-Semitic.

[canadaneil]

Sorry -why all the pussyfooting around. Of course this statement means that Dawkins hates Jews.

[michael]

There are a lot of people who are not atheist but anti-theist. They are the ones who believe that religion, all religion does a great deal of harm. Zionists and muslims fundamentalists are the worst, Closely followed by GWB's lot.

[Tom Beck]

The point is surely this: whether or not Dawkins is an anti-Semite, he nonetheless repeats one of the oldest classic tropes of anti-Semitism, the immense power allegedly wielded by a small number of Jews. Together with the Blood Libel, the supposed power of the Jews has been used for centuries as a justification for the demonization and persecution of the Jews. That infamous forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is full of such assertions, and served Hitler, the Muslim Brotherhood, The Russian Communists, the Poles and many others in their various attempts to exterminate Jews.

With Dawkins we have not some half-baked imbecile posturing pompously (though he does that too) to achieve the maximum of notoriety for a shabby cause. The man is, for goodness sake (!!) a fully-fledged professor at one of the best universities in the world, whose job description is to communicate with the general public. From such a man we have a right to expect that he knows what he is saying, and has carefully thought it through. And yet it would seem that he genuinely believes in one of the central tenets of anti-Semitism.

That is the crux of the affair. Nazi Germany was full of such men, Nobel Prize winners among them, who also believed and promulgated such nonsense, and many of them were by no means out and out anti-Semites. In the Poland of today, as in much of eastern Europe, they are there aplenty, in the Middle East they flourish…. And are now joined by Dawkins. So the question is not whether Dawkins is an anti-Semite, but why a man who should know better comes out with such bilge. And if he can talk thus about the Jews and their alleged power, why should we believe anything he has to say on religion or other such matters? If such are his views on a minority persecuted for two millennia, what price his views on other questions outside his immediate field of expertise?

Therein lies Dawkins' problem. If he is not an anti-Semite, he is at least in this respect a fool, and neither position is deserving of much more than contempt. And Mr Finkelstein is right. That such a man should have the ear of the public is indeed frightening.

[Doug Chaplin]

I'd like to draw your attention to the book Darwin's Angel by John Cornwell which notes Dawkins' reliance on an arguably anti-Semitic source for his dismissal of the Bible. I blogged a review of this book here with some references: http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/10/richard-dawkins-guardian-angel/
Like you, I doubt that Dawkins is himself anti-Semitic, but in his haste to polemicise against religion in general he has drawn in some strange bedfellows.

[michael rigby]

Dawkins is a pain in the rump,a boring self publicist,in love with his own verbosity, who seems to be the darling of the media at the minute.
I wish he would just give it a rest.
Vain hope of course, he is making far too much money.

[Ben Walford]

no no no! It's not 'anti-jewish conspiracy stuff'; it's the fact that Dawkins, painstaking as his scientific methods must surely be, as a philosopher and commentator is imprecise, crude and all-around mediocre.

When he says 'more or less monopolize' , we're just getting the usual Philosophy/Politics AS Level 'i've just found a long word Miss' stuff from him. Let's not make sinister what is laughable.

[Smike]

Better Dawkins an atheist than a dentist as he seems to keep on hitting raw nerves.

[Ian McMorran]

D.Finkelstein is guilty of casuistry, to say the least. Of course, one should ideally distinguish between the State of Israel and Jews, but it is after all a rather special State, created specifically for Jews, and in the mind of Joe Public the distinction becomes blurred. D.Finkelstein's reply to Tim's comment is also unsatisfactory: if no anti-semitism were originally implied, why use an emotive word like "fear" ? Unsurprisingly, most readers assumed that it was a fear of anti-semitism. The reason so many readers have responded is because they either seized upon the innuendo or "misunderstood" Finkelstein's prose - hence the debate over anti-semitism.

[Igor]

imho you've gone a bit too far with your deconstruction of Dawkins' innocent remark, maybe it would have made more sense to simply ask the man himself what he meant rather than go jumping to all sorts of scary conclusions about how jewish conspiracy beliefs are once again getting out of hand. I personally don't find Dawkins' remark one bit scary because as a reasonable and rational person I am able to infer that obviosly Dawkins was referring to the situation around Israel, what else could he have been talking about after all. Plus if you want to do some more knit-picking about the exact meaning of the words used, the pro Israeily lobby in the US is primarily comprised of jews so it can be said to be jewish, they do influence the US policy toward Israel which is part of the overall foreign policy of that country so in general it can be said that they influce the US foreign policy so I can't see anything so wrong or let alone scary in saying that the jewish lobby in the US influences that country's foreign policy if the point you're trying to make is that if a group of people sharing a belief (zionism, christianity, atheism whatever) can influence a country's policies if they join forces and act together. You, otoh, simply ripped this remark out of its context and totally blew it out of all proportion reading all sorts of meaning and connotations into it which were never intended. So please, just chill

[Bob Clark]

Proffessor Richard Dawkins is just another self-proclaimed Bletherscite! An 'Ayottollah' of Academic bilge!

[Isaiah]

Who does Finkelstein think he is kidding?? Show a little spine there Danny.

'President Bush had been warned. He was to exploit the attack of 9/11 to launch a series of wars on Arab regimes, none of which had attacked us. All, however, were enemies of Israel. “Bibi” Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister of Israel, like some latter-day Citizen Genet, was ubiquitous on American television, calling for us to crush the “Empire of Terror.” The “Empire,” it turns out, consisted of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and “the Palestinian enclave.”

What these neoconservatives seek is to conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel. They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.

[Michael Pfautz]

Sometimes very smart people open their mouths and surprise us with the amount of crap that simply falls out of it for no other reason than they opened it.

However, it appears to me that he has more faith in atheistic human values than in religious values (singling out "Jewish" because of size as much as anything else). Pretty brave, if you ask me, to put such stock in the values of a lobby that has no higher authority to which they owe any obedience more than their own self-interests.

But that would be precisely why they have no organized lobby. They generally have no rationally philosophical motivation to care about anyone else's interests.

[John O'Connor]

Daniel Finklestein is well behind on the learning curve if the believes Dawkins' comment to be disturbing coming from a liberal intellectual -- Surely, as a staunch supporter of Israel, he must be aware of Mearsheimer & Walt's recent book "The Israel Lobby & American Foreign Police" , and the debate it is stirring in political circles and the halls of academia in the US.

[rj]

Why is it, that when the Jewish world view is castigated, the conversation is always tipped back to loose accusations of Nazism? It's so tiring.

Finklestein, You simultenously deny calling Dawkins anti-semetic whilst making him a confederate of Jew Haters. Guilty by association, pretty much.

How can you explain the economic, political and social cost of the US supporting Israel? The only plausible explaination is Jewish influence.

No sane person doubts that Jews have faced great repression and should be treated fairly, are a valuable resource, and should have their own state.

However:

Why does Israel get nuclear weapons?

Why does the world's current superpower flex so much muscle and invest so much goodwill and capital in supporting an unsustainable situation?

Why is there one rule for how Israel treats the Palestinians and another for everyone else?

Why can't the several million Israelis just be given a piece of the US to have as an independent country?

Why is Fascism built up as a taboo label and then used as a slur against anyone who is perceived to threaten Jews?

[Bay]

Pure obfuscation from Finkelstein.

Rarely has sophistry been so badly disguised, or applied to so baldly specious an argument!

Admit it: the gist of your first post was that Dawkins had stated that Jews control world power, that this was a conspiratorial argument, and that it was frightening.

You misread Dawkins's words, and, sensitive due to your own religious persuasion, took offense and all but daubed the man with the brush of anti-semitism.

And now you accuse him of aligning his views with those of "Nazi Jew haters"!

Admit that you misunderstood his words and are reading into them something which is not there. Give up your hubris and apologise to the man.

P.S. Comment Central is one of the most boring blogs on the net. I thought The Times would have something better. Most of the posts receive no comments whatsoever, this one being a marked exception, of course. Time to find a new editor (preferably one with a smaller mouth or bigger feet).

[Scot Richards]

What a load of unremitting politically correct tosh!!! If anything, Richard Dawkins paid a massive complement to the Jewish American community and gets pilloried by a cheap writer with nothing better to write about. I think I'll switch to the Telegraph.

[Mark Joshi]

Why not simply ask Richard Dawkins to clarify his opinion?

[Crocodile]

I don't believe Dawkins is anti-semitic, but he seems to be confusing Judaism (religion) with Jewishness (ethnicity). One can be completely non-religious and still be a Jew who strongly supports Israel.

So why is the pro-Israel lobby so successful in Washington? Because they're got something to sell - a country that, for all its faults, is still the freest and most democratic in the Middle East. Try as Israel's opponents might, 'You can't polish a turd'.

[Inna]

Would we be having this debate if this was said about ANY other ethnic group? If Dawkins had said (for example):

"When you think about how fantastically successful the Arab lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Arabs anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.

we would know this is racism in a heartbeat.

If Dawkins had said:

When you think about how fantastically successful the Indian lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Indians anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.

we would know that as racism in a heartbeat.

and so on and so forth. But he said the "J" word. So of course it's OK to make what are (in effect if not in intent) racist statements. I mean he's talking about Jews. So what's the big deal?

[Andrew]

"
A comment is made about Israel or Jews and when that comment is questioned the originator or their defenders says: "Ooh, don't get all shirty and come the politically correct with me. Don't accuse me of anti-semitism every time I criticise you".

But they haven't been accused of anti-semitism at all. No one even mentioned it.
"

Dear Mr Finkelstein, it seems rather unfair to cite the comments made by Dawkins supporters in the previous discussion as equal with Dawkins own comments, and then in the same arguement to claim that no-one mentioned anti-semitism as part of the previous discussion, when in fact countless commenters who took your side of the arguement did so.

Why are Dawkins supporters allowed as evidence but not yours?

[Mike]

Dawkins is only following in the footsteps of someone he would no doubt regard as hero, namely Voltaire. He was rabidly anti-semitic (as of ocurse was the ex-Jew, Marx). I suspect Dawkins is not especially rabid about this, just in his ususal rant mode which seems increasingly all he does.Just because people label themselves as "progressive" and "enlightened" does not mean they are not bigots on some topics, as some of the previous comments on Danny Finkelstein's piece so clearly show.

[Gerry]

I love the way in which Dawkins is absolved by so many in this affair. I'm afraid it isn't going to wash. The stain will remain. There are no mitigating circumstances. He has spoken clearly. What he thinks is now known. Is he sorry? I doubt it.That would be an admission of guilt and he is a person who likes to give the impression of making no mistakes.

[Stephen Pain]

I do think as stated before that Dawkins is sincere in his point of view, and I am sure that he intends no harm - though of course his position offends many, but then on the other side of the coin belief in one religion offends another believer. Religions should, by the way be able to look after themselves. They have Gods! He is quite a lamb in comparison to religious leaders and their off the cuff remarks.

[Tim]

Dawkins view are perfectly logical given his world view. He believes we evolved by accident, our rationality is merely a product of a blind process. Morality is also just that, not rooted in anything more than the 'ape and tiger' phase of our past. So rationally he could opt for a Huxley 'Brave New World' type future for our race, with Alphas and Epsilons being churned out in factories according to 'need'. He has no basis for saying Hitler was wrong rationally, he has no fixable 'morality' at all. So he is bound to be quixotic in all moral discussion, his rationality linked to emotion. Jihad could be a 'meme' - his word for cultural developments concretised into human behaviour - to take over the world. He seems to have assumed that Judaism is a meme, and he doesn't like it : but why that is, he cannot of course give any reason at all, it's just an accident. Dawkins is not a 'liberal' he is a pure materialist, with the bleak moral vacuum that position necessarily entails. I imagine this anti Jewish slant is just an emotivist twang in his brain, and that's just how he evolved?

[Mark Lyndon]

"As far as I can detect in history no group of people have inflicted suffering on another group in the name of furthering a non-belief in god.."
A comment which displays a truly breathtaking ignorance of the history of Soviet Russia, Communist China, their satraps and occupied territories. Now that is frightening.
The Dawkins I met was charming, charismatic and very, very persuasive.
In short, a brilliant self publicist and tres, tres chic.
After all, strident atheism is quite simply de rigeur, the pret a penser de nos jours. To think otherwise my dear, would be social death, tout court.

[Roger Pearse]

Well I detest Dawkins, but, given that he was summarising the position of Jewish influence in the US in two sentences, he was undoubtedly correct in point of fact. No-one really seems to doubt that; only whether he should be allowed to say it in case it fosters resentment.

Now I have no view on whether this is a good or bad thing. But we have come a long way from freedom of speech, tho, if a group actively engaged in doing something that many people would think wrong can stifle any mention of their activities on the grounds that people will think ill of them for doing it!

[GuruOracle]

What is an atheist foreign policy? and how would it be 'better' than a 'jewish' foreign policy?

[F Calder-Smith]

Hitler loved dogs. It follows therefore that all dog lovers agree with "a contention supported by Nazi Jew haters. And that, that I do find frightening"
This is basically the quality of what passes for the argument.

[Cyril Marcus]

Hatred of God does not alter nor affect that He Alone plans and controls ALL things. The less one knows Him, the more nonsensical one's imagination becomes.

[Polly]

We are all entitled to an opinion,
it is questionable why the US foreign policy does support Israel so much even though Israel has committed atrocities (I know Palestine has as well!) But an eye for an eye?

[Tim]

Seems to me Dawkins is being taken too seriously here - the old Authority Fallacy again. He's a good scientist but what does he know about Israel, the Middle East and US politics? His comments look like the typical teenage rantings of the liberal left, unwilling to recognise that people can hold a political postion different from them that can be justified in a logical, rational and evidence-based way. Hence the nonsense constantly spouted in these comment sections claiming that Tories hate the poor, that Republicans are all greedy racists etc. etc. Here Dawkins finds something he disagrees with and blames it on religion - oh if only everybody thought like me, how marevellous the world would be! As I said, typical teenage thoughts that sadly infect too much of the world and lead to much of the violence as such people turn to the bomb and the gun to "persuade" us how "right" they are.

[Amy Green]

What seems to incense many (whether they express it or not) is where any minority group (or family) is over-represented demographically in positions of power and influence in what alleges to be a democracy, and where there exists the possibility of nepotism/cronyism through what amounts to extended family networking despite legislation designed to ensure equal opportunity and lack of discrimination. If 'family' here is
defined as a large, extended genetically related endogamous group which remains small, this can be hard to handle surely, especially if it is verbally able?

Britain effectively lost its colonies for its imperialism and quasi 'cronyism' it could be argued. Surely the widespread antipathy towards Jews (as an abstract group), especially in the Middle East, but also in the USA, UK and elsewhere in Europe, including Russia and the ex republics (think of 'the oligarchs', is not to be explained in terms of blind jealousy, but as healthy concern about group hegemony, which appears as cronyism and bias? If one looks back at alternative humour over the past 3 years or so, much of which has been satirical and subversive, the target group has not been Jewish it's been the gentile status quo, yet the comics have been disproportionately Jewish. From one perspective, it can be seen as covert racism/subversion masquerading as satire (think Ali G, or Little Britain).

No doubt this antipathy is exacerbated by the media coverage of so many high placed Jewish people falling from grace (which is statistically bound to be the case if they are over-represented in the first place), but one can not deny that where there are minority groups which are specifically protected by anti-racist legislation, and who have action groups working in their interests (is that not racist?), there must exist opportunity for abuse which needs to be monitored without fear of being charged anti-xxxxx.

Surely it is not anti-Semitic to point this out? History has a sad habit of repeating itself if we do not try to learn from it.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_cook/2007/08/the_propaganda
_machine.html

[Simon Peter]

I am surprised that Dawkins wishes for atheists to achieve more influence.

He underestimates, however, the success of his crusade and of those before him, in making the population of the developed countries atheistic.

Evolutionism is atheistic! No God is required for the existence,for the nature and and for the continuance of the world.

No one, who is scientific, believes that a Designer started all the evident and indisputable design!

Because we are all scientific, we are all evolutionists. Because we are all evolutionists, we are all atheists.

We are all atheists because we deny design! We deny design even in the complexity of nanoscopic DNA and its interaction with the rest of the cell.

The evolutionist electorate of the developed countries elect atheist politicians to lead them.

The atheist politicians may choose to manifest religious cultural interests and tendencies, but the denial of design and Designer determines their atheism.

The Jewish Lobby is no different.

Having inherited many religious traditions within a culture of religion, their great hope and effort is that a population of people in the Middle East will be allowed to live out their lives to their own endings.

This desire to live and to live is not religious! It is evolutionist!

This desire to live is, therefore, atheistic. The evolutionary desire of an individual to live, and not die, has nothing to do with God or with divinity at all.

Atheism has won, Richard, so do relax, there's a good chap!

[Chris Coles]

God is a figment of the wonderful imagination of the human race that has grown over millions of years of evolution to try and explain what primitive man could never hope to explain. There are thousands of "gods" spread over every culture and over every history of everyone who ever lived on the planet.

As with any invention, for God is a human invention; others have jumped on board to use the concept to their advantage.

All books, I repeat, ALL books, are the product of the human mind. Humans wrote them, printed them and published them.

So the only reality is that a great deal of harm has been done to, what was, at the beginning of the last century, a very peaceful people, the Arab Palestinians. I once had a very revealing conversation with an elderly woman who had been a nurse in Palestine when she was a young woman and her story of a beautiful, pleasant, happy race of nice people was something I have treasured ever since. So the reality is that a new group of people used a book written by a human being as evidence of their "purported" right to displace these Arabs.

ALL of our security problems relate to the ongoing and totally illegal displacement of the native, and historically otherwise peaceful Arabs from their lands.

Now I can see I am going to be called an anti-Semite for even suggesting the ongoing attempt to continue to establish a nation called Israel must be stopped and the Arab lands must be returned, with full compensation, to their rightful owners.

But someone has to bring a sense of the need for change to this debate as nothing will change until reality is brought to bear on the situation in the middle east.

[Has]

Just because he has concerns about the influence of US Foreign Policy from the 'Jewish lobby' you suddenly try and paint him as anti-semetic. Get off your high horse. It's very clear Jew's in America have a very big say in US Foreign Policy and the Israel-Lebanon conflict was clear evidence. Dawkins was just pointing out something that many others believe in but are too afraid to say anything as they all too often get censored for their 'anti-semetic' opinions.

[Dean]

I'm still not clear, Daniel. If Dawkins believes the Jews monopolize the foreign policy of the world's most powerful nation -- a variation of the anti-Semitic accusation of Jewish world power -- why are you not prepared to call him an anti-Semite?

[Adrian Drummond]

American foreign policy is largely dictated by public opinion. Public opinion is largely influenced by the media.

Having worked for one of the three main American TV networks I was surprised to see how much their reporting of the Middle East was so one sided. Editorial decisions are taken in New York. I can only suppose that those making the editorial decisions in New York have a pro Israeli bias.

I suspect the this media network is not the only broadcaster in America to have an editorial line influenced by either the owners or editorial staff.

[Tim Comte]

Replying to Stuart (15 Oct 2007 14:28:54)who said "As far as I can detect in history no group of people have inflicted suffering on another group in the name of furthering a non-belief in god and that is why Dawkins suggests that the influence of atheists would be beneficial in foreign policy."

I think it is as well to bear in mind that states following Marxist theory have sometimes caused quite a lot of suffering on followers of certain religions. A good example was Chairman Mao's policy on
Tibetan Buddhism. Even atheists are capable of doing harm to others, which is entirely consistent with the observations of evolutionary psychologists on interchanges between "in-groups" and "out-groups" generally. We should always keep in mind that ANY group is capable of cruelty towards another group, with a view to heading off the worst of our excesses.

[Tom]

Daniel, you're being a bit disingenous. In your original blog you appear to wilfully misinterpret Dawkins, claiming he believed "Jews control world power" when in fact he said "the Jewish lobby... more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see." There's a big difference between the two, for a start there are two crucial qualifiers in Dawkins' statement; "more or less" and "as far as many people can see". Now while US foreign policy includes such dull issues as relations with the EU and bilateral pacts with South American states, for the "many people" across the globe US foreign policy means, whether we like it or not, Iraq. This is because it is, by some distance, the most significant US foreign policy of recent times. And thus, since the invasion of Iraq was backed by AIPAC, what he is saying isn't really that outrageous at all, and certainly isn't the twisted logic of "Nazi Jew haters" which you equate it to in your despatch above.

[Alfonso Parelli]

Steve- the idea of an atheists lobby in the US is the most absurd notion I have ever heard and just shows how out of touch with reality Dawkins is. The problem with atheism has always been that it defines itself in terms of theism. So let roll with Nietzsche and say God died in the 19th Century - what next? We believe in nothing? Is atheism a nice way of saying you're a nihilist, you believe in nothing? It just isn't enough. Show me your prophet- or is Dawkins your prophet? The Nazis were the closest we've come to nihilism.

[Owen Edwards]

There is a further worrying aspect to this - the cult of personality rising about Dawkins. Whilst I doubt he has the same maniacal intentions as dear Stalin, and certainly hasn't the power, the ironic link may be drawn between the minor fanatical pedant and the great dictator - their fans worship them, no other system. Atheist foreign policy indeed!

[stanzler]

Jews support Israel
The US also supports Israel
THEREFORE Jews must run the US
---
I find this quite hard to take seriously
__________________________________

How about?:

US supports Israel
Jews supports Israel
U.S Jews supports Israel
U.S Jewish senators supports Israel
Evangelical christians supports Israel
ALL the powerful people support Israel

American public have no say, they didn't vote for 'Israeli Lobby' or Israel

[william]

Dawkins is also historically ignorant or wilfully obtuse. His comment, "So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place." is clearly wrong. Atheists had a huge impact on 20th century foreign policy - Marxist-Leninists being the prime example determining the foreign policy of the Soviet Union, driving Comintern and the Communist International resulting in concentration camps that dwarfed those of Nazi Germany (another atheist outfit).

[Mark]

He is one of many voices that are attempting to separate Israel from the United States. In a nutshell, to isolate Israel is the ultimate goal with total genocide in mind. And if you think that living in the USA separates you, your not living in reality. You may ignor the Muslim community and the threats coming from them, but I can assure you they are not ignoring you. Beneath the surface of the world and its thoughts, there is a general view that eliminating Israel and any Jew that lives is a right idea. I am by no means suggesting that you go underground but you have to understand the mindset of the Muslim leadership and Islamist leadership on a global basis. Don't isolate it to the Middle East and think that it will never effect the mindset of Americans. Beware! You will see the day when the only safe place for a Jew is Israel.

[Amy Green]

In my earlier comment, that should have been 30 years, not 3 years, and the full link and the end was:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_cook/2007/08/the_propaganda_machine.html

Continuing with the affirmative action theme, some (e.g David Irving) have implied that the seeds of affirmative action may go back as far as allied psychological warfare during WWII where the Political Warfare Executive (PWE) (which included members of the BBC), denounced Germany's forced expulsion of European Jewry during the war (proscribed today by the UN and EU as a war crime today, but was it back then?) and alleged the starvation and gassing of hundreds of thousands of European Jews specifically to vilify the Nazi regime and Germany. They cited a joint 'United Nations' declaration condemning these atrocities even though technically, the UN as we know it today did not exist until 1945. It was in fact an Allied condemnation (led by the USA/UK/USSR) of the Axis Powers.

The following a translation of one such document created by the PWE in 1942 and dropped over Germany up to 1943.

http://www.psywar.org/apddetailsdb.php?detail=1942G068
http://www.psywar.org/psywar/data/TRANS/1942G068T.pdf

Some context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Warfare_Executive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Warfare_Division
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/17/newsid_3547000/3547151.stm

When considering the alleged power of the Jews, perhaps we should remember two things. First that David Irving rightly lost the libel case which he brought as he made it clear that he is indeed a Holocaust Denier (which is not illegal in the UK, although it is in some European states), and that he is sympathetic to National Socialism which may or may not be unpalatable, but is not illegal. So the defendant did not, as the judgement reflects libel Irving. The second point is that in 1942, the PWE merely asserted that all that was in the leaflet was true, and whilst we have all seen the horrific images, and read the accounts from eye witnesses since (people lie when politically motivated), we should also remember Iraq and the WMDs, the David Kelly tragedy, and what's happening in the world today over Iran, and that the Articles governing the IMT after the war were not those which govern normal judicial practice.

Remember, the first casualty of war is truth.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/David_Irving_v._Penguin_Books_and_Deborah_Lipstadt/VIII
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/i/ftp.py?people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/judgment-02.01
http://telaviv.usembassy.gov/publish/mission/amb/assistance.html

[Tim Rowe]

Unfortunately, when you say "I am faced with a lucid, liberal intellectual lending his support [...] to a contention supported by Nazi Jew haters. And that, that I do find frightening" you seem to be falling into a similar trap to the one you accuse Dawkins of falling into. Because Nazi Jew haters believe it, it must be wrong? Well, surely some Nazi Jew haters believe that 1 + 1 = 2, and that it's good to care for one's parents in their old age, so should we condemn those views too, lest we find ourselves "lending [...] support, [...] to a contention supported by Nazi Jew haters"?

The fact that Nazi Jew haters believe something is, in this case, surely nothing but an irrelevant attempt to make him guilty by association. His claims should stand or fall on their own merit, not on the merit of anybody else who happens to believe the same.

[Chris Coles]

I want to make it absolutely clear, I am not advocating any action that would cause any physical damage to any group. In my view, the illegal occupation of Arab lands can be brought down to the simple, legal and economic fundamentals. The law, The United Nations, many people, including people who one would describe as Jews have declared many times that the continued occupation of Arab lands by Israel is illegal. That illegality can be resolved by the normal lawful action of calling in the lawful bailiffs and moving the unlawful off the land they occupy.

A court of law can, and inevitably will, sooner or later, decide the value of reparations to be paid for the illegal occupation of the land and the additional damages that will have to be paid to the Arab peoples. That is the reality.

I do not subscribe to any action that is in any way unlawful.

It is the duty of any group to obey the law.

[MaryCunningham]

Dawkins’s pronouncements on the determinants of American foreign policy deserve no particular regard. He has no particular insight on the influence and actions of AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbyists.

Of course one can say the same about his pronouncements on religion and his atheistic cheerleading.

One can also say his rhetoric is brutal and incendiary. He believes religion is a deadly virus. He is not a Marxist but his views are similar to Marxist atheists like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and other 20th century mass murderers of the religious (and others who they deemed “enemies of the state”). The only difference is that they had power while Dawkins has none.

But the record of atheists in power is fearsomely bad. Their genocidal crimes are evidence. The puzzle is why the atheists who proclaimed their humanism so loudly killed so many of their fellow human beings.

[Lee]

So, what if he is a racist? If he has no god to tell him to be gentle or understanding, then why should he be that way? Without god to tell you why you should behave one way or another, then why not be the bastard you have always wanted to be? If there is no god, there is no judge, so do what you want, and screw everybody else.
"Do what you want shall be the whole of the law" is the atheist's response to the Ten Comandments. So let him be a racist or whatever he wants. With god out of the picture, there is no one else to tell him he is wrong.

[Amy Green]

The problem surely, is that lobbying means that millions of US tax dollars each year go to Israel from two sources, the US Treasury, *and* private donations. From the government, much more goes to Israel per capita than to say Egypt.

When US charities campaign for money for Israel, their donations are tax deductible, which means that whilst the cost to those who donate is nothing (and has hidden benefits), and whilst it provides jobs for those working for NGOs (what we in the UK now call the Third Sector), that money goes not to help non Jewish local US citizens, but just to local Jews and Israelis. It may possibly, (as one may infer from the CNN footage referenced in the other thread) also even help US Jewish citizens find second homes in Israel.

Whilst there's nothing illegal in any of that, surely one can see how it *could* generate resentment? One of my points has been that it's because *other* groups can't network in that way (as they don't have quasi dual citizenship) that anti-Semitism is reinforced.

The same sort of resentment is made in the UK about Poles and other nationalities sending money back home and developing special interest groups to support their common objectives, so it isn't just the Jews who are resented for this sort of behaviour. We saw the same sort of thing causing terrible conflicts in Northern Ireland not too long ago.

[Adam Neilson]

Daniel I must say that in this instance I find your own blindspots and leaps of logic just as frightening. I mean, surely there are plenty of contentions supported by 'Nazi Jew haters' with which you would agree; and just because such people might support the idea that the Jewish lobby has disproportionate influence over US policy does not make that contention wrong.

I know you have heard of AIPAC, but I'm surprised you apparently don't know they were by some distance the deciding factor (votes-wise) in Congress's unjustified Dec 2001 resolution condemning the Iraqis for their involvement in 'terrorism'. And as if the wishes of the Israelis were not already known by the following summer, on Aug 16th an aide to Sharon formally urged the US to invade Iraq ASAP on the grounds of WMDs (see AP or CBS). Three days earlier Sharon himself told the Knesset that Iraq was 'the greatest danger facing Israel'. Those matters are completely overlooked here. Indeed it seems even mentioning one may see me branded as anti-semitic by a 'frighteningly' sizeable number of your readers.

[Bull13]

If you need a god or a judge to behave you are an utter and useless inmature ass. I do not like what he said. I do not condone what he said. Being an atheist does not excuse mine or any other persons misbehavior. Grow up Miss Cunningham.

[Greg Palmer]

Richard Dawkins is entirely correct.

And the causes of most of the world's hot spots of trouble can indeed be traced back to American Imperialism. Most of this imperialism is motivated by the need to protect Israel, a country that was, by the way, founded after a "terrorist campaign".(Israel was founded in 1948 by a Jewish "terrorist/freedom-fighter" who later became Prime Minister). The country of Israel was founded because biblical prophecy said it should be. And that is precisely Professor Dawkins' point. Religions cause misery and state-sponsored murder.

Professor Dawkings is anti-religion and he is not specifically anti-Jewish. He is anti-catholic, anti-buddhist,anti-everything to do with the God Delusion.

Keep up the good work, professor.

[Steve Whittaker]

I think what he was clumsily trying to say was that the American-Israeli lobby either monopolises, or is very prominent in US policy towards Israel.

But what is important really is his choice of words. I don't think people in public life should really have the excuse that what they meant to say 'came out wrong'. The point was that it was such an awkward and badly-carpentered sentence that it stands in its own right as anti-Semitic, particularly as he can't tell the difference between a Jewish lobby and a Zionist lobby.

[Eddie]

Dawkins is no more a scientist than I am. The word "science" means knowledge. I have a small knowledge of the Bible. That makes me (and millions of others)a Bible scientist, Dawkins has a knowledge of his own making and hatred of God. Dawkins is a sad person. The Jews, Israel,Christianity are all targets for his hatred. Why does he fight Christianity if he believes it does not exist? One day he will meet his Creator.

[Adam]

Dear Daniel, I think that that you have rightly pulled apart Dawkins' rather rash generalisation and blurring of the line between Jewish Israel and American-Jewish policy makers, this was in my opinion an oversight and rare semantic mistake by the Professor. Whether or not this in itself would be reason enough to publish an article on it is questionable and the only thing that really inspired anyone to reply to this thread is, I would guess, that you DO suggest however mildly that there are anti-semitic undertones to his comment.

My real point is this: regardless of what you have to say about his comment surely it is far far far scarier that there are a large number of people in politics throughout the world who really do believe that Virgins have given birth to super humans, the world is 10000 ish years old, the world was created in 7 days or that it is OK to smash one of your children's faces in if they don't believe in the God you raise them to believe in? It is not irrelevant that they "choose" not to act on these instructions/myths (most of the time) which are often so repulsive that they make one feel physically nauseous. They are not driven by a "revised" God depicted by Jesus in the New Testament (particularly in the case of the Jews and Muslims) but because it has become and will become less and less necessary throughout time for people to feel as if they need to rely on doctrine which is 1000s of years old for their modern moral standpoints as science and innate human sensibility increase and dogma is slowly decreased through reason.

There is a comment above by Michael Pfautz above that suggests that Atheists can't hope to be taken seriously as a political group as they answer to no higher power and serve only their own interests-this is the kind of logic put forward by theists that really frightens me. With all due respect Michael is it not rather arrogant to assume yourself so much further up in God's (whichever your culture bestowed on you before you even had an analytical mind) plans than I am as an atheist? Do you truly believe that people who answer to a God (any God?) are more likely to be morally good and sensible people?? I would ask you to watch the news a bit more regularly and certainly read more holy scripture.

[Glen Kristensen]

It is unfair to say that US policy is guided by the 'Jewish lobby', but it is equally hard to deny that US foreign policy tends to irk the enemies of Israel more than it irks the friends of Israel. That may of course just be a coincidence.....

[Jenny Perry]

Dawkins' hate was much in evidence, especially by his irrational demand that his claims were propped up by what was little more than dogma and the same lies and propaganda of those who seek to demean the human and civil rights of others, make them less than. To play the blame game.

What it tells me is that this highly educated man, clearly has little respect for the intelligence of his readers, and seems to overestimate the amount of sway he has as well. I believe the public is going to have to decide on whether they have the intellect to question Dawkins' motives, or not.

[EDWARD KELLY]

Halibut.

Get a life. It seems now that any reference to race is verboten. Dawkins point is just that Atheist should form themselves into effective lobby groups.

Big deal.

[Roger C]

Hey Daniel,

How come you've deigned to reply to just one post (Tim's) and failed to respond to the many other good points made? What is this? Favouritism? Surely not!

[Tom]

Even to conceive of the phrase 'the Jewish lobby' is repulsive. Barely a lifetime ago, Jews across Europe were herded in their millions into ovens. The state of Israel was formed, in this context, through a historical momentum that neither the Arab nations nor Britain could stop (though both tried - Britain abstained from the United Nations vote, and the Arab nations attacked Israel en masse within an hour of it). Israel's existence will need to be protected, and probably fought for, for many more generations. To talk of an Israeli lobby is one thing - of course such a thing does and must exist, in a political world. But to conceive of a 'Jewish lobby' is to align oneself with those who ignore the historical facts of the Holocaust, and thereby take a position which allows for the possibility of a second.

[MaryCunningham]

Still full of bull, eh bull? Why ever do athies favour presumptious remarks like: "Grow Up"? Atheists can be righteous and moral people. Show me where I said elsewise?

I do have immense problems with Dawkins' rhetoric,deriving as it does from Enlightenment figures such as Rousseau and Voltaire, all of whom derided religion. Their philosophy fed directly into the Jacobite section of the French Revolution and the Terror, whose history Lenin studied intently. (His conclusion was that the Jacobite Terror didn't go far enough. He would not make that mistake).

Dawkins' rhetoric is more indendiary than their's. He has likened religion to a deadly virus. How do we react to deadly viruses? We kill them, we stamp them out. And in the past atheist regimes did just that.

Daniel is right to be frightened. And so should the rest of us.

Bad ideas have bad consequences.

[Dai]

Stuart says -

>As far as I can detect in history no group of people have inflicted suffering on another group in the name of furthering a non-belief in god

Never heard of Lenin, Stalin, Mao? I would bet that more people have been killed in the name of atheistic ideologies in the last century than in the names of Christianity and Islam together in the last two milennia. People persecute and murder each other because they enjoy it - not because they are either atheists or theists.

[MaryCunningham]

Dear Adam,

Let me get this out of the way: I write as a Christian. I believe in Jesus Christ we see the face, character and will of God. But I have never believed—and the Church does not teach—that atheists cannot live moral and righteous lives.

What does disturb me is atheist rhetoric (not yours I might add), Dawkins’ especially. You can see a little of it above. Bull13 writes of religious as children: "grow up". This means that the religious cannot determine right from wrong and atheists must make that decision and then force "right-thinking" upon them.

And what is "right-thinking"? If you as an atheist believe teaching children about religion is child abuse, and then you form a political action group, what actions must you take? Obviously deliberately seizing young children from their religious parents and giving them to atheist parents who will not ‘abuse’ them.

If you believe that religion is a virus infecting wider society, and then you form a political action group, what actions must you take? Obviously wiping out the incidence of religious practice before it goes any further. (You cannot ‘try’ a virus in the hopes it will recant its error. You have to destroy it completely.)

If what I have described is close to the genocidal practices of 20th c. atheist states, well, then that is where such rhetoric leads. Words are important. Brutal rhetoric and bad ideas have bad consequences.

I hope the above viewpoint has not been offensive. This will be all from me.

Mary Cunningham
London

[Alan Trent]

I am an atheist but I don't consider myself a member of a special interest group or political lobby. The fact that I have no belief in the supernatural doesn't make me a member of a particular group. I resent the way Dawkins assumes he can rely on me to support his views. He is making the same mistake that religious people often make - assuming that atheism is itself a religion. Dawkins now seems to think that he is some sort of leader of the atheist religion and that he can make authoritative statements on its behalf. Well Dawkins doesn’t speak for me – I am not anti-American, anti-Israeli government , anti -Zionist - oh let's stop splitting hairs I am not anti-Semitic.

[Doug]

"more or less monopolise American foreign policy" but you forgot "as far as many people can see". If you are saying that is a personal affirmation of those views then I am within my rights to infer your accusation of anti-Semitism. If you are not invoking anti-Semitism then what is it you are afraid of? And then in the last sentence you equate his remarks to those of the Nazi's! How you can seriously deny accusing Dawkins of anti-Semitism after that comment is astounding.

At the top of America's foreign policy is the Middle East, influenced by the Jewish lobby (pro-Israeli like AIPAC) and others, which in itself leads to other important regional areas to be squeezed out both in terms of attention and budget. So undoubtedly by keeping Israel and the Middle East at the top has a significant effect on all the other foreign policy areas. I don't see how you can separate the Jewish lobby and Israel. Israel after all is a theocratic democracy.

[Andy]

"who do believe... that it is OK to smash your chidlren's faces in..."
Adam, can you point out exactly which Christians believe this?
As for "innate human sensibility", where is the evidence that this is increasing? And against what standard is it being measured? Your incredulity that people who answer to a god can be "more likely to be morally good" fails to take into account the fact that all of western civilisation, whether or not individuals are believers, is based on morality inherited from religious beliefs - like it or not, this is actually where you get your concept of what "morally good" means.
The only cultures I can think of that have been based on non-religious belief systems are the ones mentioned by several posters here - Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc.

[John]

Is Dawkins advocating that atheists club together like Jews to promote their ideological viewpoint of the world?

If he was ever anything else he is now an absurd parody of those he opposes.

[John Anderson]

Wow, the unbelievable amount of anti-semitism is breathtaking.
Why do citizens of the US generally (not always) support Israel? Well, in what other country in the Middle East can you practice your religion (including atheism) openly? Oh yeah, Israel. What other country has been attacked by their neighbors 81 times in less than 50 years? Oh yeah, Israel. Gee why would we turn a blind eye to their nuclear weapons? Oh yeah, a billion people surrounding them that urge for their complete destruction (see Hamas, Iran, etc.), so maybe they need a good deterrent. And now for the religion part, what other religion widely practiced in the Middle East allows for the peaceful co-existance of other religions? Oh yeah, Judaism.

[DJ]

"Instead I am faced with a lucid, liberal intellectual lending his support, apparently through careful sifting of the evidence (but without any justification I can see), to a contention supported by Nazi Jew haters. And that, that I do find frightening."

Are we supposed to take this juxtaposition and sully Dawkins with the bette noir of Nazism now? The original article was silly hyperbole but this is just really quite disingenuous and nasty.

[michael]

Finklestein might a well criticise Monty Python, it would have as much effect.

[Matthew]

"Because I didn't accuse the Professor of anti-semitism."

"I didn't call him an anti-semite. Perhaps it would have made your life easier if I had. But I didn't. Live with it."

Daniel, don't treat your readers like fools. You gave it the subject heading 'anti-semitism'. How clear can it be?

[Andy]

A question that a few posters need to consider:
Since the state of Israel, along with American support for it, is clearly the cause of all remaining friction in the world, why not just let the Arabs annihilate it?
Once that's over and done with, all other middle eastern countries will turn into paragons of tolerance, democracy and liberal values, peace will break out all over, religion will vanish in a puff of smoke as we're all guided by wise, tolerant, moral atheists, the Americans will stop eating burgers, we'll find the crock of gold at the end of the rainbow and who knows, maybe even global warming will cease?

[Amy Green]

Firstly, Daniel's original article on Dawkins was indeed filed under ANTI-SEMITISM. So why the denial?

Secondly, US foreign policy (since the end of WWII at least) has long been hostile to regimes which are either 'National Socialist' or 'Socialist in One Country' (Stalinist/Maoist) whilst appearing to be less hostile to Trotskyite and anarcho-capitalist movements which work to de-stablise planned economies and render free-markets more likely. In short, are good for business. Hence the support of internationalism, cosmopolitanism (and members of the Socialist International)?

One might expect 'The Lobby' (and AIPAC is not a PAC or the only lobby, just its most influential member) to influence foreign policy beyond the Middle East and Israel's local enemies on the grounds that they are Israel's enemies (N Korea, Russia, China etc)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

[Amy Green]

Does anyone seriously expect 'The Lobby' to curb Bush's enthusiasm?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/17/wwar117.xml

Given that 98% of the USA isn't Jewish and 99.5% of the UK isn't Jewish either, does anyone reading this think there may be something a little bit out of proportion here?

On the other hand, does money talk?

[cls]

Mr. Finkelstein: Before I thought you were merely exaggerating. Now I suggest you are being dishonest. You have not just tried to interpret Prof. Dawkin's statement in the worst light possible but you now distort what you actual said. You leave out completely that what you actually claimed, I quote you precisely, is that Dawkins "a liberal hero, believes, er, that Jews control world power..." The bulk of the comments on your column referred to your vast distortion of what Dawkins said.

Now to defend yourself you act as if the matter was merely a disagreement over how much influence Jews (more precisely the Israeli lobby) have on US foreign policy. To pretend here that you didn't exaggerate what Dawkins said in some sort of Jews-control-the-world conspiracy theory is dishonest. One can believe that you might misinterpret what Dawkins said, which would be your defense for the last column.

But one can't believe you misinterpret what you yourself said in the previous column. This sort of rewritten is dishonest to the core.

[Patriot]

I'm sorry to bring this up but hasn't anyone read the Mearsheimer and Walt paper on the power of the Israeli lobby?
First of all it is absolutely true that the Israeli lobby is disproportionately strong in my country and additionally it is true that it represents the interests of Israel not America. This should be illegal.

Furthermore, as in the example of Walt and Mearsheimer who have nothing anti-semitic to say, and yet have been labeled anti-semitic in an effort to discredit them, political correctness does work very well to suppress what people don't want said. The label of anti-semitic is no exception.

I in no way support Dawkins and I don't believe that a world in which atheists have more power and more say will be in any way beneficial, however, I also think that his comment was incisive.

While everybody is up in arms about Finkelstein's and Dawkins' motives, arguments, reasoning, wrong choice of words etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseam; we are all ignoring an uncomfortable truth.
I guess nobody wants to talk about it, no one wants to face up to it, but they are coming, they are.