Dawkins on the power of the Jews

I have just come across the most extraordinary statement by Richard Dawkins. It is right there on the Guardian website without a sentence even questioning it. Here it is:

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.

So Dawkins, a liberal hero, believes, er, that Jews control world power. And, judging from the Guardian, it is now a part of mainstream debate to say so. Perhaps you think I am over-reacting, but I am a little bit frightened. 

Chris Dillow manages some elegant reflections on social proof.

All I can manage is Oh My God.

UPDATE: Click here for an elaboration on this post

Comments

[Tony Francis]

Dawkins is wrong. Atheist have been and continue to be vocal in the public discourse of the US. Just look at Madalyn Murray O'Hair and Michael Newdow:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Newdow
I am a little confused: Dawkins wants to take away the right of the family to bring its children up in a religious environment? What is he, some kind of fascist? I'm not going anywhere near his comments on the Jews! It is a little scary...sort of like 1933-1939 rhetoric.

[Patrick]

There is a big difference between claiming that Israel monopolizes American foreign policy, (which could certainly be convincingly argued) and claiming that Jews control the world.

This is the first I've read of your blog. Is overblown rhetoric the norm around here, or is it something you reserve for prominent atheists?

[Teddy]

Dawkins didn't say Jews control the world. He said "the Jewish Lobby" monopolizes American foreign policy. He's probably referring to the AIPAC, which was a major proponent of war with Iraq and now Iran. That's not anti-Semitic. I'm an American Jew who is very troubled by the strength of conservative Jewish special interests in DC, which claim to represent American Jews, yet are far more right-wing than most of us really are.

It's sad that people can't question this without being called a Nazi or a self-hating Jew.

[Hugo Pottisch]

It is essential to recognize that Dawkins, as an atheist, is not anti-semitic per se in his argument.

The US is a self-proclaimed Christian nation to many that is filled with all sorts of religious and non-religious believes: Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, Taoist, agnostics, atheists..

Today's status quo would allow Jews and Muslims to state their religion but as an atheist your political career is limited.

Contrary to the two lonely examples of Mr Francis - there are even more openly gay politicians than there are openly agnostic or atheists.

Dawkins makes a good point but many will want to put racist slurs on it to distract from the core.

Responsible journalism would therefore rather use the following title:

"Dawkins on the weakness of atheists"

Far less provocative but at least responsible. I somehow assume that Dawkins is aware of human nature and has used the example on purpose - knowing full well that the media will run with it? He must be as surprised as Mr Finkelstein himself that the it has not led to more controversy yet. Since when are humans so rational?

[Hugo]

I saw this on Andrew Sullivan's blog.

The commentator's line "Oh my God" is a bit of a cop out, as is inferring an argument of 'social proof' from Dawkin's statement.

There is a real intellectual debate in foreign policy studies about the extent of the Israeli lobby. Enjoy this hosted debate:

http://www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/11/israel-lobby/

[Chris C]

A world run by atheists, eh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxkpzRi_iPM

[Guido Fawkes]

Danny, you are far too sensitive about this, are you seriously suggesting Dawkins, a rationalist, is anti-semitic?

[Sean]

I'll be polite and say that Dawkins is a fool if he believes that, rather than what immediately sprang to mind.

Perhaps this should cause to reflect about the possible dangers of getting drunk on our intelligence?

[Robotnik]

Since the presence of Dawkins spells death to humour, let me put a bit back in, with a joke told me by a Jewish friend.

Two Jews are sitting on a train in 1930's Germany. One of them is reading a Nazi newspaper.

His friend asks "How can you bear to read such a paper?"

"Simple," his friend replies "whenever I read a Jewish newspaper, all I get is 'Jews are emigrating, Jews are assimilating, Jews are persecuted.' It makes me so sad. But when I read this newspaper, I get 'Jews own all the banks, Jews own all the press, Jews are going to take over the world'. This makes me feel happy again!"

[Mike ,Sussex]

Dawkins is not an Anti-Semite he is just refering to a Lobby group in America.

Its a fact that a Pro-Israel organisation does have some
of an influence but anyone has the right in a democracy to form a lobby group like any other minorty group.

Heres a link to the Aipac website.
http://www.aipac.org

[Mac Qurashi]

That Israeli Lobby manipulates the US foreign policy towards Muslims is nothing new. Most Americans believe that. I do not subscribe to the aethists agenda of Mr. Dawkins, but he does make some points.

[LiberalHammer]

Having read The God Delusion these comments appear in the context of the pro-Israeli foreign policy pursued by the US, and in part with the Christian right. Don't see much of a problem with this to be honest.

Dawkins does NOT advocate taking children away either. To try and smear him with this totalitarian-Nazi innuendo is frankly pathetic.

[Mark]

You should not be scared, the whole world should be. The small group of neoconservatives which pushed the White House into the Iraq invasion in 2003 were nearly all Jewish. Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Haas, Josh Bolten, James Schlesinger, even "Scooter" Libby. The problem is not that being Jewish means a person is inherently bellicose or part of a conspiracy. The problem, however, is that more often that not, Jewish people put Israel's defence and policy forward as a personal matter to be fought for rather than a matter of normal international relations and diplomacy. They can not separate the personal connection to a country that is so religiously connected to them, as the Vatican would be for Catholics, for example. Each of the "professionals" I listed above are well known for their views that Israel's best interest is America's best interest, but I wonder can they objectively analyze that situation because of their personal faith. I should think not, and their record has proven not. Separation of religion and state is what makes a modern democracy distinctly separate and more secure than countries of old. It is all that separates us from being Iran, which incidentally is now the next target in the name of protecting Israel's security from the very same people who had us invade Iraq.

[Francis Tuttle]

Dawkins' language is extremely loose to be sure, but there is no doubt that the Jewish lobby has an influence out of all proportion to numbers on US Middle East policy if not elsewhere. That is recognised by all. If atheists had the same...

[Freswith]

Let us consider the example of the Balfour declaration. Made at the crucial point of the First War, when the Russians were collapsing and the German armies were moving west to overwhelm Britain and France, the cabinet apparently took time off to approve a plan for a homeland for the Jews. Why? Because Rothschild had demanded it at a quid-pro-quo for bringing America into WW1. He carried out his side of the deal, and so, surprisingly, the the UK government. This was not lost on Corporal Hitler, who after America entered the Second World War, gave orders for the Holocaust. I wonder if Rothschild would have been quite so chipper if he realised the human cost of his coup?
I do not understand why the US still backs Israel so strongly. The Arabs have the oil; all the Israelis have is oranges. This does not fathom, unless one accepts that there is a disproportionatrely powerful Jewish lobby in the USA.

[Rob]

The title of this article makes such a comment seem unexpected. Dawkins is one of the most intolerant men in the world, and American liberals have a history of racism and antisemitism.

As far as I'm concerned he can just go make love to his retarded fish frog.

[JOHN CHUCKMAN]

You are playing melodrama games, Daniel.

It has been considered ugly to say anything of this general nature for decades. The reason, of course, was sensitivities over the NAZI's lunatic claims and savagery.

But times are changing. Israel today is understood as quite savage itself and unbending for peace.

It is finally starting to be acceptable to criticize Israel, although Israel's extreme defenders insist on calling everyone who does so, anti-Semitic.

Two highly respected American academics from two of the nation's most prestigious universities, as I'm sure you know, have written a study on this very subject. Their findings completely support Dawkin's comment.

They too have been called anti-Semitic.

Former President Jimmy Carter has spoken out now about Israel's policies. There never was a fairer or more intelligent man in the White House, but he too has been called anti-Semitic.

Bishop Tutu and Nelso Mandela have spoken out about Israel's apartheid. Again, we get the charge of anti-Semitism.

Israel gets more foreign aid - $3 billion per year - from the United States than any other nation on earth - that's five hundred dllars per year per Israeli - and yet it is not at all an underdeveloped country.

It also receives immense other privileges such as access to intelligence. Israel's prime minister gets more visits to the White House than virtually any other leader.

Moreover, Israel has been caught several times engaging in serious espionage against the U.S. but they pay no penalty.

If you think that that kind of privileged position and assistance can be maintained in the American political system without heavy influence - what Americans call clout - you are only kidding yourself.

Please don't abuse the intelligence of readers this way.

[Sirkowski]

How dishonest, Finkelstein!

Find me where he says "Jews control world power", please? You won't because he didn't say that.

He's talking about influence relative to numbers. Relative to the size of their population, Jews have more influence than other groups of equal sizes. That's not a judgement of value, it's a fact. So drop the knee jerk reaction. Why shouldn't Atheists take exemple of the Jewish strong sense of preservation?

Your attack is a bit pathetic, Finkelstein. Because it means you think Jewish influence is a bad thing.

[alan]

Dear Daniel Finkelstein - what's so antisemitic about the passage you quote. Dawkins gives American Jews credit for being intelligent and industrious enough to have gained such influence in American society. (Would you deny this?) Can you blame Dawkins for wishing similar success to atheists? -- And Tony Francis, As far as I know, Dawkins' position is that the family should naturally have the right to bring up their children in whatever belief they wish, but in all schools the children should have the right to unbiased information about all religions and philosophies, without any indoctrination. Your attempt to smear Dawkins by likening him to the Nazis is way below the belt. Shame on you.

[Kim Scarborough]

It's in asides, often, that we find out how people really think. It would actually be less disturbing if he was presenting "the Jewish lobby controls policy" as an *argument*, because it least there's some reflection there that it's subject to debate. But that's not his point; his point is that atheists could be more affective in influencing policy, and he uses the "Jewish lobby" canard as a *given*, showing that he just accepts it as an uncontroversial fact.

[Timothy]

Another example, albeit uninspired, of the near-daily assault on Jewish political participation. Such remarks (presumably in the "we all know it's true" category) serve to undermine Mr. Dawkins' moral credibility. As for the Guardian, well, it's less mainstream than backwater on this issue.

[John]

Dawkins did NOT say that "Jews control world power". That is purely your own invention. And anyway he is making a point about the power of lobbies in the USA, of which the Jews have one of the most influential. So what's new or interesting about that? You have taken these words completely out of context. Dawkins is not anti-semitic, as you imagine.

[Tim P.]

It is clear that the right wing elements of Israeli society - for whatever reason - are able to put enormous pressure on the US and correspondingly our conduct in the middle east. There would be no talk of yet more wars with Iran otherwise.

This might be due in part to the influence of evangelical Christians in the US who see support for Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. Israeli politicians would, after all, be fools not to take advantage of such goodwill for their own benefit.

[Lee Sharpe]

I have disagreed with almost everything this man has written or said.

However, I have no issue with this because its patently true, Israel does have a massively disproportionate hold over US affairs both through its powerful lobbies and through dual-nationality politicians that shape US policy to Israels benefit.

Bringing the question of anti-semitism into the equation seems like a device to stifle debate about these facts.

[max bernstein]

i agree with dawkins on most things
im a secular jew and believe that religion is the fount of most conflict in the world. but as regards the jewish lobby its a myth that went years ago its the blacks and hispaniics turn to be of influence now in the u.s,and there welcome to it.

[bob rayner]

"Dawkins wants to take away the right of the family to bring its children up in a religious environment"

Just for the sake of argument, why *should* a family have the right to raise their child believing in pernicious old myths?

In this society it seems that if my parents had taught me that women are weak or that black people are stupid, that would surely be wrong. However, if my parents had taught me to believe in a book full of atrocities & absurdities, that would be just fine, as long as I resisted the urge to slaughter people for cursing, for being gay, or for working on a sunday.

[Colton Hines]

How is Mr. Dawkins' statement antisemetic? There is a zionist lobby which, while made up of mostly jews, also includes right-wing fundamentalist christians. Just take a look at muzzlewatch.org for numerous examples of suppression of criticism of Israel. Remember what Ariel Sharon said
"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial". How decidedly democratic mr. Sharon.

[Bryan Leed]

Dawkins makes comments like this in his book THE GOD DELUSION. In that book he also likens terrorists and pedophiles as contemporary Salem witches. He also says he cannot disprove that we all live in a computer simulation. I think it is scary that anybody takes Dawkins seriously. It proves the old adage, "if you don't believe in something, you will fall for anything," which sums up my impression of the "New Atheist" movement which Dawkins is lumped in with.

[John]

Probably the reason it's part of mainstream debate to say so is because it's true! I doubt think anyone can seriously doubt the effect of Jews on American policy and the American corporate world. It not a criticism, they are just good at getting their message across and getting into positions of power.

[Shaun Walker]

I would at least expect The Times to be able to interpret arguments properly. Sadly, this did not happen on Dawkins comments on the Jews. After having read through his comment, no where does it say "I believe that Jews control world power" - he states that Jews do have quite a lot of power in the USA through lobbies. And they do! They are quite successful in blocking damaging books about Israel from reaching book store shelves. This (http://dawn.com/2007/08/20/top11.htm) is just one example.
Given that us atheist have no natural prejudice (Jews are not going to be too friendly with Muslims, and vice versa) I cannot see why the world would be a better place. But hey, anything bad said about the Jews at all MUST be from an anti-Semite ... if there is one group that you CANNOT criticise, it's the Jews. If you point out the power of Jewish lobbies, or the atrocities that Israel commits, you're an anti-Semite buddy. (They even get their own term for racism.)

[Tom Beck]

Dear Danny,

I’m sure you’re no more surprised than I am that a ‘liberal hero’ should come out with anti-Semitic claptrap. Anti-Semitism has long been part of the ‘liberal’ agenda: the Jews own the money, ergo they oppress the workers and also run foreign policy, ergo are responsible for all the ills in the world. That credo has been around for a very long time, and of course it’s now fine and dandy to say so. If you look at the history of the last 200 or so years, you’ll find that every 50-60 years after the previous anti-Semitic outburst, the oldest hatred, once the self-castigation of a bad conscience has faded away, comes back into fashion. Dawkins is an atheist fundamentalist as others are Muslim or Christian fundamentalists, and as intolerant as either. And where’s there’s intolerance, anti-Semitism is not far behind. So what’s new, pussy cat? I’ve always thought Dawkins a rather revolting specimen, and this merely goes to confirm my impression of a thoroughly nasty man.

[Nick]

Before yelling at Dawkins about his comments it is a good idea to prove/disprove his basic premise. Just because you don't like his comments does not prove there is not some truth in what he says.

[Jerry Scroggin]

It is a indisputable fact that there is a very powerful Jewish lobby.

[Derek Wicks]

If the Jews (or for that matter hommes de bonnes volontés) had indeed been successful in monopolising American foreign policy (more or less), it would have been the position of the United States government for many years now that Jordan was the state of the palestinian people, and the United States embassy would be in Israel's capital, Jerusalem.

[Mace Maclean]

Seems a little harsh, and out of context just to quote this paragraph - let's not over-react here. Whether true or not, and whether for good or bad, the influence of the 'Jewish lobby' in US politics is often referenced in the UK media (to be honest, I'm far more concerned about the fundamentalist Christian lobby stateside).

All that aside, looking at the full article, I think he is making a very valid point about how atheists in US politics are far down the pecking order in terms of organisation and influence. Let's face it, even in this country, declaring ones-self an atheist is probably not a vote-winner, regardless of the fact that it could be argued that, in many respects, we are a 'post-religious' society.

He seems to me to be making the point that the 'Jewish lobby' are punching far above their weight, and is holding them up as an example of a minority being able to get their views onto the political agenda - something that atheists in the US should aspire to.

[Catherine]

To Daniel

Could you please invite Dawkins to elaborate on what he meant?
-
When he says " as far as many people can see", that number obviously includes himself. By not saying instead " as I see it to be", it appears that he is trying to hide his ... ?

[cls]

I’ve always been happy to slap down anti-Semitic nonsense but you are way off. He said that America’s Jewish lobby “more or less” monopolise American foreign policy.” He didn’t say anything about “Jews control world power.” You take the quote and then notch it up tenfold to interpret it because the statement itself doesn’t say what you attribute to him.

And for the previous commenter to compare that to 1933-1939 rhetoric” is indicative of poor history teaching. The statements made by Nazis, to which this individual is alluding, were never this mild. Dawkins was not nowhere near spouting comments like those from Der Sturmer or other Nazi propaganda sheets. Exaggeration is sometimes useful and sometimes it makes the exaggerator look foolish. Mr. Francis also confuses influence with vocality.

[jon livesey]

I'm astonished by Tony Francis' comments. Madalyn O'Hair has been dead for ten years and her final years were tarnished by rumours about her health and custody. Michael Newdow is more or less a figure of fun, a perennial litigant who has lost all his cases.

The reality is that atheists are very marginalised in the US.

I doubt if Darkins, who appears to have a tin ear for American public discourse, is going to help in this.

[Colton Hines]

What's anti-semetic about Dawkins' comment? The zionist lobby, which includes mostly Jews but also fundamentalist Christians, has been very successful at silencing opposition to Israel- take a look a muzzlewatch.com (a site which, btw is run by anti-zionist Jews) for a small sampling of it's influence. Let's not forget what Ariel Sharon, president of a so-called democratic israel, has said on record:
"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial" --March 25, 2001

[DJ]

Firstly, I'd like to see some more context to the quote. But what exactly is the problem here? Is what he said a fact or not? Is there a value judgement involved? Is there something explicitly to do with race here that is irrelevant to his point?

And from the comment: "So Dawkins, a liberal hero, believes, er, that Jews control world power.", I'm reading it as some American Jews have disproportionate influence on American foreign policy. Is that the same thing?

[Sandy Murray]

I fully support Professor Dakwins. Just consider this comment from the historian Sir Alistair Horne after he had met George W. Bush at the White House:

"Bush, an honourable man, might have made a good President - without Iraq. His fault was to heed too often the voices of the Zionist lobby in Washington. Never before has the Israeli tail wagged the American dog quite so vigorously; the results threaten to prove as disastrous for Israel as for the Western alliance."
The Daily Telegraph, July 15, 2007

[G.P]

No offence meant but Mr Finklestein and Mr Francis's comments about Dawkins are overreactions to sensationalist comments. It is unlikely that Dawkins is reiterating "1933-1939" rhetoric. Instead consider that his fault is the same as that of Finklestein and Francis, they enjoy the drama of a climatic sentence. Dawkins should learn to keep his personal dislike for religion in logical control. His critics should understand that just because he dislikes religion and will therefore make brash comments about all of them his comments do not indicate he is advocating pogroms.

[Laoshi]

It is problematic that anyone would define the above statement as antisemitic. It is one person's assessment of the political situation and can as such be refuted or verified. It is not, however, anti-Jewish. No one can argue that the Jewish lobby has not influenced US foreign policy to a very great extent. Hence the establishment of the state of Israel.

[Toby]

There is little need to criticise Professor Dawkins' remarks any more. One can just sit by and watch him dig his own philosophical grave.

And it seems to be getting deeper by the hour.

[Robin Wentworth]

Sure, we may not always agree with the rhetoric that spews forth from some individuals, in fact we may seriously disagree. But, that is the beauty of what is America, we can agree to disagree, and do all in our power to make our position clearer.

[Alexei Tsvelik]

For the most of the XX-th century the atheists had controlled 1/3 of the globe. Prof. Dawkins has conveniently forgotten about existence of atheistic totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union, China, Eastern Europe, Nazi Germany and so on. Have they made the world a better place?

[Jay Fitzgerald]

There is nothing anti semitic about this observation by Richard Dawkins. It's a well acknowledged fact. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of America's middle east policies is aware of it. So is the Jewish diaspora, who work and contribute funding to secure it's maintenance. Furthermore, both American political parties are careful to ensure it's successful continuation. Neither of them will dare oppose it. There may be a lesson here for other American lobbyist groups. There is a new book by two American professors that deals with this issue in a balanced and scholarly fashion. I have not heard any denial of this Jewish lobby success by any of my Jewish acquaintances. On the contrary, they applaud and support it. And so they should. No Francis, not scary at all. This is very 2007 reality. It's not even politically incorrect.

[Don]

I disagree with your interpretation of Dawkins' remarks. It's one thing to say (as Dawkins does) that pro-Israel lobbyists have an inappropriately large influence on American foreign policy. It could, perhaps, have been phrased better though. This claim is not the same as an assertion that Jews control world power. Unless, of course, one thinks that American foreign policy is the end-all, be-all driving force of the world political stage.

I think you're overreacting.

And in response to the comments by Tony Francis, Dawkins argues that children shouldn't be arbitrarily forced into any religious category based on that of their parents. One can teach one's children what one believes, but it's something else to define a child's beliefs for him or her.

[Robin Leggate]

"More or less monopolise American foreign policy" and "Control world power" are not the same and it is not honest to base your argument on the assumption that they are.

[Gareth Williams]

Dawkins is beginning to share the same platform as Fascism whether intentionally or not.

One only has to look at the French revolution when athiests "did" rule the roost. Was France a better place?

It was only the message of the gospel that stopped that barbarism from reaching these British Isles and spared our country from the same anarchy.

I guess Dawkins would like to see all religious "maniacs" and "non-maniacs" incarcerated for their belief's - is this any different to the horrors of the past.

Where is the freedom of speech and religious or intelectual thought in this athiestic utopia?

Who is Richard Dawkins?!

[Basil Saunders]

To be fair to Dawkins, in almost every analysis of american politics (including mainstream broadsheets etc) there is reference to a supposedly significant jewish influence on US foreign policy- mid east/israel policy in particular. I don't know whether this is true, but it certainly seems plausible given the large number of jewish voters there. I don't think dawkins alluding to this is reason to feel a little scared.

[John B]

God help us! Here we go again, taking things out of context. This is one short paragraph out of Dawkins 460 page book The God Delusion.

Dawkins does not say "jews control world power" he merely repeats the regularly stated fact the the jewish lobby has influence in the US. His statement is about influence, not jewry.

[John Gosling]

I think you are being a little paranoid Daniel. Do you not see that Dawkins is paying a considerable complement to Jews. It is not only in the world of American Politics but in so many areas of human endeavour that Jews have achieved at a level beyond all proportion to their numbers. Browse through a list of authors of scientific publications or read though the names of famous classical musicians and you cannot but be struck by the disproportionate number of Jewish names. What Dawkins is saying is that if people identified principally by their religion can achieve so much, then maybe a group identified by their lack of religion might also be able to exert an influence.

[NBeale]

This is a logical step for Dawkins - he has long claimed that religion is some kind of virus. "Liberal Hero" forsooth.

[David Hughes]

Dawkins is right. The Jews in the USA are wealthy out of all proportion to their numbers, wheather religious or not and money is power, especially in the USA.

[Fabian from Israel]

I was reading Dawkins book, and now I have second thoughts...

[Dectora]

Dawkins is wildly mistaken, as a letter to the Guardian has already made clear. He choses to conflate a US Zionist lobby with a Jewish Lobby. Many deeply religious Jews have no interest in the state of Israel, as he should know.

[Paul Hunt]

Tony Trancis is a little confused. The distinction needs to be drawn between irrational views and fact. If it is observably the case that there are many Jewish people involved in shaping US forign policy then this would be a fact, not an irrational view; to state that fact is no more "scary" than to say that the earth is round and not flat. Mr Francis should go and examine the evidence first.
He is even more confused about denyng the right to bring children up in a religious environment as being fascist. Surely, on this basis, he is just as fascist when he denies people the right to teach our children that the earth is only 10,000 years old?
Paul Hunt

[Ken Leyland]

I can understand Jewish sensitivity to Dawkin's remarks but I think it's misplaced. I've long been an admirer of the Jewish capacity to change, control and influence events - to punch way above their weight. Without Christ, Marx and Einstein the world would be a completely different place. Though I'm not sure Dawkins would be happy with the inclusion of Christ, I see no reason to doubt that he meant what he said in that sense.

[Stanley Robinson]

Dawkins makes the not unreasonable point that even small religious groups have significant influence on the policies of major governments - trying to infer that this is somehow anti-Semitic is frankly pathetic. When George W Bush tells us that his god told him to go to war with Iraq perhaps we should all reflect on how beneficial the influence of religion is on America's foreign policy!

[steve moxon]

This is backwards.
It is Daniel Finkelstein who needs reprimanding.
Dawkins made a simple observation.
To attack simple observation in this way is political correctness fascism (and I use the term 'fascism' according to its correct usage as being derived from the control of culture as opposed to the control of means of production).

[Robert Green]

What on earth are you talking about? Dawkins suggests that the Jewish lobby in America has a disproportionate amount of power and you immediately compare him with pre-WW2 Nazi Germany? And he is absolutely right to suggest that atheists are under-represented in US politics. Polls suggest between 10-20% of Americans are not religious, yet only a single member of congress has 'confessed' to being an atheist. That's all Dawkins is referring to, the fact that no atheist stands a chance of being elected to higher office in the US, despite representing up to 1/5th of the public.

[DM]

More proof that Dawkins is an idiot who likes to hear himself speak or see his self serving words in print.

[Roger (MNS)]

Daniel Finkelstein's distorting comment on Professor Hawkins' words and the quite hysterical comment by the reader Tony Francis show how there is a dangerous hair trigger of sensibilities here, so that even cool fairly neutral observations such as Professor Dawkins' immediately get the finger pointed at them. I see that the comments by readers are in fact moderated by the original author of the article so I don't really expect this comment to be published. In which case a letter to the editor would seem to be in order.

[Mike Young]

Yes you are overreacting.

[john]

Certainly, if you include the fundamentalist christian lobbyists (who believe that christ's second coming is predicated on a supremacy of a jewish state), then Dawkins' assertion is clearly true. Or would you deny that too?

[Ray Warren]

I have always had a lot of sympathy for Dawkins' views on religious fanaticism & dogmatic nonsense. Atheism, however, seems to be just another brand of religion, which I am also disinclined to believe in - largely on the grounds that you can't prove a negative satisfactorily.

Surely, this is where the CofE comes in. A set of values (10 commandments, do as you would be done by etc.), but no real need to display any form of belief.

If the AOC got a grip he could position his brand as ideal for a huge number of people.

[leila]

When he says 'as far as many people can see" what does he mean?

If he represents liberality God help us all.

[James Smith]

I must have read something different from you Mr. Finkelstein.
Dawkins is clealry commenting on the power of the Jewish LOBBY on Amercian foreign policy, awhich is a pretty uncontroversial comment if you look at American foreign poicy towards the middle east since the Second World War.
To interpret this as saying that " Jews control world power" seems somewhat paranoid I'm afraid.

[Adrian Drummond]

I concur with Dawkins.

I once worked in Washington DC and was amazed at how powerful the various lobby groups there can be. The Jewish lobby is certainly no exception. Their members exert considerable influence on Capitol Hill. Anyone who does not recognise this is being naive.

And Daniel - in the context of a US Middle East foreign policy - it is a little frightening.

[Dr. Kevin Law]

Dawkin's said the Jews are very influential considering their small numbers, not that they ran the world Mr Finklestein; there is a difference.

[Charles]

In Dawkins' defense, Israel has been the largest recipient of aid from the US since 1976 (actually, is number two now that Iraq has overtaken it). Yet only 1.4 per cent of Americans are jewish.

Still, I'll bet he regrets using the word "monopolise", which is a foolish exaggeration. But the disproportionate influence is undeniable - surely?!

[Nicholas Gavey]

Daniel,

You claim to be a little frightened of Hitchen's statement. Although you do not specify what exactly you are scared of, I assume you are implying that Hitchens is guilty of latent anti-semitism.

I really think this implication is unfounded based upon the quote. Hitchens doesn't say that Jews rule the world. He does say that the Jewish lobby has an inordinate amount of influence over current American foreign policy. This is certainly a somewhat controversial claim, but I'm not sure how it is frightening. Hitchens doesn't frame this influence as a bad thing, but rather something for atheists to aspire to.

[Ian Kemmish]

Well of course over here we might think of the phrase "Jewish lobby" as referring to any op-ed piece in the WSJ, but in the US I think it has a very specific and provocative meaning, identifying the speaker as aligned to a particular group, doesn't it? (Which goes no way to excusing the lack of intellectual rigour in the quoted extract, of course...)

His aims might be worthy but his strategy is getting worse and worse. Surely the correct approach is to remind people that the US is _already_ being run by the godless, that the current administration are like "Neoranters" who believe they've already been saved and therefore can do whatever they please?

[Dan]

I'm not somebody who would generally agree with Dawkins at all, yet the Jewish lobby in America is pretty powerful - theres no doubt about that. If its anti-semitic to mention this fact then this is another ridiculous "PC" rant.

[Ralph Phillips]

"It is right there on The Guardian website without a sentence even questioning it"
And if no-one including your own Daniel Finkelstein would have written about it, that's exactly where it would have stayed.
The Guardian is well - known for its anti - semitism, and so nothing appearing there should surprise anyone.

[Bob009]

I don't think it was anti-jew per se, more a comment on the political influence of minority belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherants_by_Religion.png)

[David Pritchard]

This sort of guff is unfortunately typical of the axiomatic beliefs of the liberal left, just like "Iraq was all about oil". These assertions are never tested, simply assumed to be obvious truths. It is rather surprising to see a rigorous advocate of the scientific method like Dawkins parroting them, but then it should simply serve as a reminder that when people stray out of their field of expertise, no matter how smart they are, they often tend to spout nonsense.

[Bernadette]

Of course the Jewish Lobby exerts emormous influence on US foreign policy. How do we know? Because they tell us so. US congressmen and politicians tell so. US political journalists and commentators tell so. There are endless books and documentaries confirmimng this. You can't look at world politics for very long before you come to accept that it's an eveyday fact of political life in the USA. Dawkins is not making a controversial statement. Please find out some basic facts before attempting to slur people.

[Jonathan Stanley]

It is indeed now "part of mainstream debate" to express the same blithe, untruthful and anti-Semitic assumption as Dawkins. Another "liberal hero", Menzies Campbell, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, has expressed following on BBC-TV 'Question Time' on 28/6/07:

Question to the Floor & Panel:
Is Blair's role as Quartet envoy potentially useful or not?
Michael Howard response: Could be so, against the odds, can't rule out that Blair could use his influence with Bush for good this time to get some positive result.
Menzies Campbell intervention addressed to Howard:
This is very unlikely given that there is a U.S. election coming which Bush is mindful of. "You ignore the extent to which the pro-Israeli lobby has an enormous influence in Washington." [spontaneous applause from live audience]

[Hugo Pottisch]

I am much more worried about the Christian and Muslim lobbies around the world than the Jewish and the marginal atheist one?

BTW - max bernstein, blacks and hispanics are not religions - we call them races! They can be of any religion.

Dawkins does not argue that there should be more/less color but "less believe" in a democratic government. He does not believe that the state and the church are really separated to benefit the people fully yet. I agree!

Eg I think it would have been better to gave an atheist president when 9/11 happened.. better for the environment as well.

When you do not believe to be the appointed tyrant of the world and in eternal life after death - you value this life and this planet a tad more? You can also talk a language that does not involve supernatural terminology that nobody can understand, etc.

No - me thinks it would be good for us if politicians who run for office were not allowed to state their supernatural believes at all during the campaign and while in office (at least in public). the natural state fantasies should really be kept separated.

That this is NOT the case is the most scary thing regarding politics and democracy in the West!

[David Moss]

Professor Dawkins is quoted as saying: "I would like to see people encouraged to rejoice in the world in which they find themselves, the universe in which they have been born, to take full advantage of the tiny slice of eternity they have been granted". Granted by whom?

According to The Guardian, Professor Dawkins's "estimates, which square broadly with official data, show that atheists in the US account for about 10% of the population". So 90% of the population are believers. Professor Dawkins is a champion of science. "It is impossible to believe in God" is his scientific hypothesis. Faced with 90% evidence to the contrary, what does a champion of science do? Alter the hypothesis? Or alter the evidence?

The Guardian has the most finely tuned antennae in the UK. Tuned to discrimination and, above all, guilt. Nothing passes them by. And yet Professor Dawkins's casual anti-semitism did precisely that – it passed them by. "Why aren't we more outraged?" asked one of their headlines yesterday*. Good question.

Instead, Professor Dawkins is compared by The Guardian with Daniel going into the lions' den and with David fighting Goliath.

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2184048,00.html

[Tony Francis]

The Guardian article states: "Dawkins is angry at the way children are indoctrinated into faiths..." It would appear families are the ones initiating this indoctrination. Families aren't going to stop doing this. So the only way to stop it is to take control of the children away from the family. Interpet it as you may. The Bush family has been accused of being too close to the Saudi Royal Family and Musharif, who among others, would appear to have every bit as much influence as the so-called "Jewish Lobby" - which, by the way, isn't monolithic. In the US, 85-90% claim to believe in God. Don't whine about avowed atheists not getting elected. That's simply the demographics. Children can't even sing secular Christmas songs in Public Schools anymore. Atheist's have no influence? Please!

[Huw Thornton]

Daniel Finkelstein has a point.

It is remarkable how many Jewish-conspiracy based ideas are mentioned or alluded to in media blog sites without any challenge at all - in the Guardian and elsewhere.

As far as Richard Dawkins is concerned, he seems in his non-scientific writings to be very much concerned with ideas about power and dogmatism. He takes what he understands to be received opinion and uses them in his arguments without really examining them. It is a little chilling that he wants his dogmatic atheist cohorts to transform a fantasy about minority control into some kind of reality.

[Laconian]

Sadly, many of the comments here show that Finkelstein is right to be frightened that as respected a public figure as Dawkins could say such a thing in the apparent belief that it was an established fact.

[Thomas Adès]

The comments here are horrifying. The phrase 'the Jewish lobby' is clearly anti-Semitic.

[R Theodore]

World was (at least partially) run by atheist guys like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler ans Mao - not so long ago.

[Karthic Dixit]

Dear Mr.Finklestein,
The most worrisome aspect in this debate is the nature of your reaction.
I'd have appreciated a response that made a plausible case that the powers of the Jewish lobby are vastly exaggerated.
You have let your readers, and probably your community, down.

[Ri]

Yikes! People need to clarify between the fairly powerful pro-Israel lobby (a political statement), the followers of a religion, and people who happen to belong to specific ethnic backgrounds. In this case, it's possible, but certainly not necessary, to be all three. It's dangerous and irresponsible to assume they're the same.

[jonny]

Most, vast majority of US Jews vote for the Democratic party. The idea that they dominate Republican ideas about foreign policy is a little odd, Dawkins wants to believe it.

[S. Calascione]

Daniel, I completely agree with you on the "Oh My God" bit - galvanising to say the least!

[mike green]

It's true Dawkins didn't say that Jews control the world, just near as dammit by saying they control American foreign policy. Kind of a distinction without real differance.

As for Jews like the respondent above, who think this is acceptable dialogue, and even largely true, I wouldn't call them Kappos , but the term "usefull idiot" seems apt. And the suggestion that the "pro-Israel" lobby in all it's declention if conservative or right wing is demonstrable rubbish.

[Efraim Carlsen]

I am appalled that Mr. Dawkins would utter a comment so typical of rapid anti-semites (about the power of the Jewish lobby). Apparently Mearsheimer's book (full of lies and half-truths about the rather powerless position of Jews in America) is getting traction in Britain as well as the US. Is is becoming chic in Merrie Olde Englande to hate Jews? Increasing evidence points in this direction.

[Alan Starlin Martin]

Yes, Mr. Finkelstein, you are over-reacting.

[Martin M, London]

I was surprised at the poverty of Dawkins’ arguments in the God Delusion; but it’s scary that a mild and probably valid assertion can get Dawkins and anyone who thinks his assertion might be true, accused of anti Semitism. I am very pro Israeli in the Middle East conflict but I also believe the USA Israeli lobby has done a brilliant job in influencing American foreign policy. The are several other factors that account for the USA stance on the Middle East, but how can it be anti Semitic to acknowledge the pro Israel lobby and its apparent effectiveness!

[RYAN]

Can't you distinguish between controlling US foreign policy and controlling the world? Or are you that eager to pin that old Protocols of the Elders of Zion canard on Mr. Dawkins?

Of course American foreign policy is characterized by a pro-Israeli stance that, but for the distortions that AIPAC and the Commentary crowd are ready to put out, would be considerably less tolerant of Israeli bullying towards the Palestinians. No politican with presidential ambitions would dare to criticize Israel; for one thing, he or she could kiss New York and Florida goodbye in the electoral college. One reason I have heard neo-conservative constitutional scholars give for opposing electoral college abolition (in which case we would have had a president Gore) is this very reason.

So yes, our foreign policy is heavily influenced by the Zionist lobby, which includes not only Jews, but the religious Right who in their solipsistic reading of the Book of Revelation think the establishment of the state of Israel helps bring the end of the world just a wee bit closer.

Having said all that, Israel is our friend, and we are, thankfully, theirs. For when push comes to shove and the chips are down, I would much prefer to be on the side of this longstanding democracy, however flawed and however guilty of human rights abuses, than the Islamic zealots who seek a second Holocaust, or deny that the first one even took place. There is no moral equivalent between the likes of the leaders of Iran and Hesbollah and those of Israel. Nor is there any question in my mind that the clearer this distinction is drawn for all of those who think a nuclear Iran is something we cana live with, the better.

[Edward Griffin]

Dawkins point is simply that atheists are under-represented in US politics. Chris Dillow's argument that Dawkins has "proved" this fact by argumentum ad populum (appeal to the majority) based on the wording in the quote is ridiculous.

Dawkins mentions this point in the Beyond Belief 2006 Conference. I will quote him here.

"[...] even opinion polls show that you [atheists] outnumber religious Jews and the Jewish lobby is notoriously effective in Washington. Why isn't there an effective atheist lobby with as much political muscle as it's numbers would seem to warrant?"

http://beyondbelief2006.org/watch/watch.php?Video=Session%207
Beyond Belief 2006 Session 7 Time 01:12:14

[Clothilde Simon]

I never thought that I, a Christian, would be standing up for Dawkins, the most bigoted of loony atheists, but so be it.

He believes that the Jewish lobby has a disproportionate influence on US foreign policy. Well, he may be right or wrong (the fact that the USA supports Israel, even when it goes out of its way to be nasty to its neighbours, suggests that for once he is not completely barking), but either way he certainly has the right to make the suggestion.

Now calm down, comparisons with the 1930s are way over the top: Jews must learn to accept criticism like everyone else.

[Tom Beck]

Dear Danny,

Fascinating, most of the responses, though not new, not by any means, the same tired old arguments about the Jews and their power… If only, as in the Jewish joke quoted by one reader….

May I make a suggestion? Why don’t you publish a bit of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, attributing it to ‘a well-known liberal thinker’, and see what people say? I bet you a hundred dollars to a dime the reactions would be much the same as now – it’s the Jews wot done it. Cheers, and keep your pecker up. If this carries on, you need to.

[eliXelx]

Why do you people keep calling it "the Jewish Lobby"? Isn't it "the Israeli Lobby"? Aren't there a lot of non-Jews in AIPAC?
And of course the nuance, the implication, of the world being a better place if atheists had a powerful lobby is that it is NOT as good a place as it could be--because of the Jewish Lobby?? Where is that separation of Israel from Jewish that Liberals scream about when it suits them to?
What Dawkins is suggesting is that if atheists do as "the JEW lobby" does, and do it as successfully, that would improve the world--and that, apart from being self-deluding foolishness is ANTI-SEMITIC!

[Graham Lester]

The fact is that American Jews voted overwhelmingly against Bush both in 2000 and in 2004 (when the US was already in Iraq), so how can they be accused of monopolizing US foreign policy? Dawkins ought to look at the *evidence* before he makes such silly pronouncements.

[Allan Draycott]

This tripe shows what an utter hypocrite Dawkins is since he ridicules religious people for accepting claims without proof yet he himself repeats the claim that "Jews monopolise US foreign policy" as well as assuming all, or most Jews to be "religious" - a claim made by Charles Lindbergh in a speech in 1941 to explain America's growing involvement in WWII- on the basis that "as many people can see". Since when did majority, or large group, opinion constitute evidence? Wasn't it accepted pre- and even post-Galileo that the sun went round the earth "as many (or indeed most) people could see". Dawkins should stick to biology although I hope he uses a better standard of proof for his theories in that subject.

[Allan Draycott]

Atheists do have their own political party. It's called the Communist Party and that did monopolise the foreign policy of the Soviet Union for 74 years (and still does the foreign policy of China, Cuba and North Korea). Can't recall that as being particularly benign, though.

[Jon B]

I think most commentators completely miss the point: it is the intrinsic concept of a 'Jewish lobby' that is anti-semitic, quite apart from anything else. While there may be Israeli pressure groups, there is no such thing, and never has been, as a unified Jewish political movement in the USA. It is this monolithic, bad view of 'the Jews' that so smacks of vicious Nazi and Islamist hate discourse. Once again you have all the members of a race chucked in pell mell together, ergo here you have racism.

[Ernie Reilly]

I think that the replies to your comment have shown that people are heartily sick of the situation where no-one is allowed to make any negative comments about the Jews.

[LZ]

I guess if my recent ancestors had been hunted down like dogs and slaughtered in the millions, I'd also be a tad bit concerned by the current hysteria about the influence of right wing Jews on US foreign policy.

Criticisms that lack even the semblance of historical context for the protestations by Jews against claims that they control the USA (i.e. the world) reveal more about the criticizers than they do about Jews in the USA.

[robert berkhout]

Dawkins simply made a statement about a well known and disturbing US foreign policy fact and came to a perfectly logical conclusion.
Without the Jewish Lobby there would not be a war in Iraq, I might add

[David Moss]

Let us imagine for a moment that it was not Richard Dawkins but Jean-Marie Le Pen, say, or Nick Griffin or Lady Diana Mosley who started this organisation with uniform T-shirts.

Would there be so many respondents then trying to make the academic distinctions above? Newspapers are not usually called upon to meet such high standards.

And would The Guardian then have published the article at all?

[Shirley]

So the Jews as a group are anxious about their current and future welfare. There's a surprise. You can't persecute a group of people for thousands of years then expect them not to want some control over what happens to them. Look what happened when we left all control to the non-Jews........

[Doug]

Same old faux indignation by the PC brigade who imply someone is anti-Semitic for even having any negative views regarding Jews and Israel (Americans main foreign policy area).

This is from the same people who not so long ago would brand you a racist for even trying to discuss immigration or multiculturalism or crime amongst ethnic minorities. What they really want to do is stop all discussions of Israel's reprehensible behaviour on the world stage.

[Wainwright]

"In presidential elections, Democratic candidates depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money raised from private sources"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17878-2003Mar12?language=printer

[alan]

Allan Draycott - please spare us comments like yours. I am an atheist, and proud of it. I am an atheist because I am unwilling to deceive myself into believing in the supernatural . --- Having said that, Allan, I'd like to point out to you in no uncertain terms that I resent being linked to Stalin, Mao and the like. Their parties are not my party. (They were not communists in the true, original sense of the word either. Perhaps Jesus was. He was certainly no capitalist.) Was your world-view formed during the McCarthy era? Read Karl Marx and get yourself educated, Allan.

[MacK]

A very badly expresd point.

First, one can argue that AIPAC is very, indeed unjustly influential in US foreign policy, all but 'monopolising' it -- BUT, and it is a big but, while most of the AIPAC leadership and supporters are Jews (with a big lump of Christian evangelicals), 70% of US Jews when polled do not agree with AIPAC's policies. So even assuming AIPAC does 'monopolise' US foreign policy, it is not just to the exclusion of non-Jews, but also to the exclusion of the majority of American Jews.

A rather unwise responder has suggester that vocal US Atheists such as Madelyn Murray O'Hare had similar power in US foreign policy. The trouble with that point of view is that it confuses being vocal with being influential -- and that is something militant atheism is not, at least in the US (though it was in the old Soviet Block.) However, what is influential in the US is militant secularism, personified for example by the ACLU and People-for the American Way. I would also suggest that Dawkins, in representing his style of vocal, shrill, in your face atheism as mainstream, with its loud denigration of religion, 'hijacks' atheists and atheism as much as AIPAC hijacks American Judaism.

[Adrienne Brown]

It all comes down to statistics and base-rates I hear:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/09/wednesday_19_september_2007.html#c2690183

[Aodhán Williams]

Richard Dawkins is a moron anyway.

On one occassion I attended a lecture he gave at a local Grammar school in Manchester (MGS) on his 'God Delusion', and to be frank it became painfully obvious that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

Anyone who tries to inform intelligent people that organised religion and a belief in God are the same thing clearly does not have the intellect to warrant such a reputation.

Horrifying as Dawkins is, I am not one bit surprised - this is a man who claimed that if one were to leave the Catholic church because they had been raped by a priest, they would be getting the lesser of two evils than if they had otherwise remained a practising Catholic.

Offensive diatribe from an offensive man!

[Realist]

Never mind so called "lobbies".
There are well over 100 million US Evangelicals who are Christian -not Jewish.Their Lord is Jesus, not Moses. They are entitled to their beliefs as much as any other relgion is.They are not members of AIPAC but confess their love for Israel.Whats wrong with that.They are a fly in the soup for some.

Also the overwheming majority of US Jews have been polled as "Against the War".

Nothing that anyone says or does will deflect the enemies of Jews and/or Israel from their course or beliefs.

[Hein Maassen]

Dawkins never said that Jews control the world. Of course they do not. It is a fact however that Israel is very much better in public relations management than its adversaries. Good for Israel, and it only reveals the better the ineptness of the Arabs in this respect.

[Adam]

Dawkins is not saying that the Jewish lobby shouldn't have power, he's saying that is shows that a minority such as atheists or Jews have the potential to punch above their weight. Yet Atheists in America are actually under-represented.

[Dave]

Wow, someone has dared to question the disproportionate influence of one (relatively small) group of people over the most powerful democracy in the world, with regards to it's foreign policy in one of the most troubled regions in the world. I know, I'll write 8 sentences on it to express my disgust, include the words "Oh My God" (capitalised for greater emphasis), and have it published under the heading of anti-semitism.

Fortunately there are apparently plenty of amateurs capable of intelligent debate to add to this, but it's a shame their opinions won't be printed in the paper.

[Robert]

What reprehensible behaviour Doug (09.23)?
Please remember Israel is a tiny country within a very large hostile area. We who have any Jewish connection are very defensive because the Nazis were so efficient in killing anyone whose Jewish connection was ever so tenuous. You, Doug, were never threatened or criticised.You are very privileged.

[Susan]

Dawkins is not an anti-semite, and he has numerous Jewish friends, but it is worthwhile to remember that he has questioned the Holocaust before.

[Francis O'Brien]

What I find appealing about Richard Dawkins, is the way he tackles the fact that Religion dominates our lives - want it or not. Typical is the protection from any criticism of the established church and its power and privilege in all societies (except for the now dismembered USSR)
We should be free to choose our children to be educated without the baggage that is part of State and Private schooling, as is our deference to a Monarchy as the head of the Church of England. Belief should be just -that; not foisted on children at a vulnerable time. It should only be practiced between consenting adults in private
As to Judaism - it is no more than any other Mumbo-Jumbo in its pursuit to maintain a position of privilege. The same priviges should be available to non-faith teaching. I am also delighted to see so many letters against Daniel Finklesteins' misrepresentations. He has indeed entered the Lions Den.

[melk]

As a Jew who has lived in the US since 1967, the majority of the above comments are even more depressing than those of Mr Dawkins.
Even if most of the pro-war "neocons" are Jewish, so what?
Kissinger was Jewish and actively hurt the Israelis. The judge who sentenced the Rosenbergs to death was also Jewish.This is America. Most foreigners don't understand how things work here. Only a certain type of Brit would assume that the fact of one's Jewishness necessarily determines one's politics. Jews here overwhelmingly vote Democrat and constitute most of the strongest critics of both the Iraq war and Israel in general.
And, speaking of the Democrats, do we remember how Clinton intervened in Bosnia in order to save whom exactly? The Jews of Kosovo? Other notorious US Jews include Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, about as vehement critics of Israel and American Jewry that you could possibly find. And when did all of US foreign policy start consisting of only the issue of Israel?

[Tiggy]

So, all Dawkins is saying is that the Jewish lobby have a lot of power in American politics. Am I scared? No. They don't want to take over the world for an insane medieval god. They want to protect the only moderate voice in the middle east and that is good for my survival. Dawkins is stating a fact.

Unless you want to remove Israel from the middle east (and you know who you are) and turn it into another islamic enclave for your religious/social/political/mysgogynistic reasons, then why be concerned?

Personally I have no religious belief. Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhist, Jains, Zoroastrians (alhough they had their moments) don't worry me They don't tend to go extremist.

Now Christianity is another matter. Akin to Islam (thanks to that bigot St Paul)they are inclined to inflicting their credo on others.

I adore christian writings and their art, I cherish Islamic architecture and their adaption of Indian mathematical and surgical talent and protection of Greek knowledge. This does not mean I don't see the bullying ways of both religions due to a need to control others.

Queen Elizabeth I of England had her moments of cotrolfreakery but she said "I would not make a window into men's souls"; That is tremendous wisdom.

What people do in their own minds and bedrooms is entirely their own business. If women (and other otsiders) want to read and teach and love in their own way. If a small country squeezed inbetween a bunch of male controlled contries allows just a smidgen of an iota of a dot of a possibility for the rights of women to BE then I am all for it.

I don't believe in god, but I believe in the rights of others to believe in what they want if they don't inflict it on others.

This is why Dawkins is right; people with nothing to gain religiously are, for me, preferable to those who would protect the needs of one religious group.

For me the Guardian is the epitome of a section of a marxist boring section of society who hide their need to control in fake liberal leftwingery. Their support of Islam is based on the fact that an acceptance of Islam signals an acceptance of control from a central section of society and (more importantly)potentially THEIR section of society.

I believe that we all have the right to beleive what we want. As a knock on from that we have the right to take responsibility for those beliefs and our resulting actions. We have no right to kill or suborn others to force our religious beliefs on them.

If you are going to come back at me concerning palestine then STUDY what happened and THINK why and who has most to gain financially, religiously and politically and IF there is a REAL reason for their actions or if they are evil bastards who want their own way even if it cost us all.

[Steve]

It is an anti-Semitic canard to suggest that Jewish interest groups somehow control American foreign policy. More than that, it displays an astonishingly inaccurate understanding of American politics. The so-called Jewish interest groups at issue are not Jewish per se, since they are comprised of like-minded Christians as well. Moreover, they are secular rather than religious in nature, since their aims are political rather than theistic. While these groups are effective advocates for Israel, it is astonishingly naieve to suggest either that there is a monolithic Jewish voice in American politics, or that Jewish people monoplize American foreigh policy. Thus while some some groups who support Israel may favor the war in Iraq, most American Jews flatly oppose the war. Moreover, it is ludicrous to suggest that the minority of Jewish people who support the war somehow monopolize American foreign policy, as if the 9/11 attacks, the War on Terror, and the desire to democratize the Middle East were mere historical footnotes of no compelling significance. The danger, of course, with such inanities is that they feed the anti-Semitic blood libel that Jewish people are somehow responsible for all the ills of the world. After centuries of abhorrent anti-Semitism, doesn't the British tradition of fair play require right thinking Brits to admonish Mr. Dawkins for the alarming illogic and ignorance of his position?

[David]

"Without the Jewish Lobby there would not be a war in Iraq, I might add"

Well that's complete rubbish. The majority of US Jews in the US voted for Democrats, and AIPAC was actually against a war in Iraq. The Economist this week completely demolishes this argument in a review of a book on the matter.

The fact is, it's the idea that the Jews run everything in their interests, and that their interests are contrary to the rest of the world, ergo anything bad is their fault. If that's not anti-semitic, I don't know what is.

[David Moss]

If this comment is deemed to be potentially libellous -- which it is not meant to be, it records a personal reaction -- then please do not publish it.

----------

The Guardian asked "what did he [Professor Dawkins] hope an atheist bloc in the US might achieve?"

Answer: "... Obviously stem cell research and all the interference with scientific research that goes on [should stop]".

I do not suppose for one moment that that was meant to be a dog whistle. Let me place it on record that I take these words of Professor Dawkins's to mean just what they say and no more.

But, if you do read that Guardian article with the heightened sensitivity brought on by all the comments above, then, in that special personal case, having read Dawkins's sentences about US foreign policy being a Jewish conspiracy, having read his sentences about a uniformed organisation being formed, having read his sentences about how it is time for rational people to stand up for a better society, then, when you get to his sentence about the importance of medical research for the good of humanity, it does ring a dismal bell -- "all the interference with scientific research that goes on [should stop]".

All of it? No interference? Try the British Medical Journal's "Human guinea pigs and the ethics of experimentation: the BMJ's correspondent at the Nuremberg medical trial," http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1467.

[richard smith]

It is finally becoming widely known of the control of Washington by the Israeli partisans. Dawkins is one of many who are stating the obvious.

[richard smith]

He is correct.

[Justin]

If youre a Bible reading man, isnt that the way it should be?

[Father Bryan Storey]

Professor Dawkins presents a real problem. A world run by atheists would be a world run by people who do not make attempts to reduce the ego as this is only a practical proposition if there's regular worship of God.

[Peter]

Israel lobby AIPAC actually hurts US as well as the Jewish state. It undermines US in eyes of Arab world. Its activitied have led to US losig hearts and minds 1200 million muslims. This has to be pure folly

[Simon Kahn]

Come On! When are people going to stop knee jerking every time someone says anything about the Israel Lobby. Foreign Policy influence and world domination conspiracy are NOT the same thing. Why can't normally reasonable, rational people face facts, clearly outlined academically in John Meirsheimer's work, who is hardly not credible. What is this special status that if you criticize Israel you are criticizing Jews? IF I criticize Human Rights in China does that make me racist against the Chinese?

[Joseph]

For half a century, openly atheists countries had 2 permanent seats on the UN security council. Until 2000, the UN refused to put Israel into a regional group. This barred Israel from winning an elected seat on the security council. Perhaps Richard is so out of touch with reality, because he takes atheist power for granted.

[olivier]

I agree with the second remark on this blog entry, posted by Patrick, 5 Oct 2007 18:24:38. No wonder all you "can manage is Oh My God"--like a shrill valley girl.

[alex]

The hierarchy rather than the individual niggles. But the atheists should attend the village hall for special education. Just saying like.

[muggeridge]

This is very essential reading for people who are interested in ISRAEL. Its always refreshing to hear American Jewish people question the unconditional American military support of Israel. Norman Finkelstein wrote on this subject with Noam Chomsky and they practically were labelled as anti-semitic. This subject has become too emotive and needs proper analysis without the usual accusations. Roger Cohen of the NYT recently stated that criticism of ISRAEL should be allowed and by default some members of the American Jewish lobby brigade. If "we" are going to bomb IRAN into pulp "we" deserve some answers.

[TommyPickles]

This whole thing is rubbish. In the original interview in the paper copy of the Guardian Dawkins says "who many people think" before the monopolise foreign policy part. Somewhere along the line that has been condensed into "[yet they]" which is a complete distortion of what he said.

Once again poor subediting creates a brilliant misquote with hilarious consequences...

[Alex O.]

"So Dawkins, a liberal hero, believes, er, that Jews control world power."

I like the way Daniel uses the "er," remark to give his readers their cue; the cue that basically says "here's yet another person who's broken the taboo and spoken about Jewish power that we all know is in effect, (but I can't come right out and say this for fear of cluing you in to my pro-Jewish slant) so I'll just make little sound effects in hopes that you, the reader, will detect the message I'm trying to convey and respond appropriately should you ever hear of anyone else talk about Jewish money/media power".

"And if you don't then you're an anti-Semite. So there!"

[Steve]

It is stating the obvious to say that fair and reasonable criticism of Israel should not be conflated with anti-Semitism. However, it should be equally obvious that this oft repeated bromide cannot intellectually justify Dawkins' inappropriate comments.

The simple truth is that Dawkins is flatly wrong to use American Jews to support his thesis that atheists should have a larger role in politics. Most American Jews support Israel on a secular and political basis that has nothing whatsoever do with their religion. Indeed, Dawkins seems to confuse American Jews with their Christian evangelical counterparts who often support Israel on religious grounds.

If this error by Dawkins were not egregious enough, he compounds it by claiming that American Jews somehow control American foreign policy. However, if that were true, America would immediately withdraw from Iraq, since most American Jews oppose the war.

Thus while free debate regarding the Middle East should be encouraged, Dawkins’ fatuous comments should be roundly criticized. In truth, one wonders how falsely characterizing American Jews as a scapegoat for the war in Iraq can be described as anything other than anti-Semitic tripe.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Judaism is not merely a religion or faith, but an ethnicity. This was recognized years ago in Europe and has been recognized here in Britain by the 1976 Race Relations Act.

Secondly, the Jewish religion is not against, but for scientific research, which is why so many great rabbis, the giants of the Middle Ages, in fact, have been medical doctors as well.

I am sure that Dawkins knows this, so what is his goal, but to jump on a bandwagon he knows will be popular?

As for Mearsheimer, the Engage site have posted a splendid Youtube American TV interview with him, which puts Paxman et al to shame.

The interviewer is a genius:

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1454

[Jan]

One good thing about Jews is, they
don't proselytise; another is, they don't feel the need to let off fireworks at all hours to celebrate their new year or religious festivals. For that we should all be grateful.

[Margaret Gaskin]

I would have expected Richard Dawkins to be more alive to the influence of the Christian right's "End of Days" beliefs in underpinning the USA's pro-Israel position. Both pro-Israel and anti-Semitic, the central idea is of of a battle over Jerusalem in which non-believers (including, in this context, Jews) are cast out and the believers (ie Christians) saved.

What is Professor Dawkins's point? Should the Jews reproduce more so that their influence is proportional to their number? Or should we ignore them or exclude them just because they are Jews and are already influential and pow