The really worrying Dawkins message

Lee Jakeman

Jews are the only people who try to influence others in order to further their own interests. No-one else ever does this. The British never use their influence in Washington. The French never use their influence in Berlin. The Germans never use their influence in either Tokyo or Beijing. The Americans never use their influence in either London or Moscow. Gentiles are far too holy for that kind of thing. No question about it - self-serving behaviour is a characteristic peculiar to Jews.

Joshua

I can't help but think that the vast majority of those posters have been directed to the Times site by one particular anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist blog. The posts are too numerous and the views expressed too similar for any other explanation. Having said that, those views are almost certainly also the views of the vast majority of gentiles in Britain. However, there is no new anti-Semitism in Britain. It is just that the small amount of shame and guilt gentiles have felt since the Holocaust has now utterly disappeared and they now feel free to say what they really think about Jews. Of course, there has always been the ridiculous conceit in Britain that because that nation fought the Nazis ipso facto it was also attempting to save the Jews of Europe from the Holocaust. Nothing could be further from the truth. Britain fought the war in spite of the Jews and not because of them. Whether we are talking about the conferences at Evian and Bermuda or the failure not just to take military action but to raise their voices above the faintest whisper, even if Churchill and his war cabinet had been members of the Nazi party and the British forces in the SS, they could not have done less to save the drowning Jews of Europe. Just before the start of World War II, the government ordered Mass Observation to conduct an opinion poll on the extent of anti-Semitism in Britain. The results were so shocking that the results were suppressed. Incredibly, by war's end anti-Semitism had actually increased in Britain. Obviously, nothing much has changed in that right little, tight little island. Unlike the Jews of other virulently anti-Semitic nations like Hungary, Poland and Lithuania in the 1930s and 1940s, at least the Jews of Britain today have the ability to emigrate. They should leave before it is too late.

Snorri Godhi

What Melanie Phillips wrote makes sense, and yet there is at least one question that should be put to Dawkins and like-minded people, which she does not mention: what good was the Iraq war for Israel, when Saddam did not have any WMDs? or have the conspiracy theorists accepted that Bush did not lie, that he really thought that there were WMDs in Iraq?

szeni

With the current rate of assimilation, anti-Semitism is the last thing Jews in UK should worry about. In a couple of generations, most of Jewish presence in the UK will be pockets of ultra-Orthodoxy in places like Stamford Hill and Golders Green. For British Jews there are only two options to stay Jewish: alyah or Orthodox Judaism

Adrian Drummond

I am someone who left a comment in defence of Prof. Richard Dawkins on Daniel Finkelstein's post. You say, "..Dawkins ignorant bigotry". What ever Dawkins might be, he is certainly not ignorant. I would also like to add that having spent two years on Capitol Hill in Washington DC, I simply do recognise Melanie Phillips' analysis you've highlighted above.

dearieme

"those who are indeed genuinely anti-semitic - who oppose the existence of Jews": hold on, old chap. Anti-semitism is nasty all right, but to claim that all anti-semites are exterminationists is going a bit far isn't it?

Gregory Lauder-Frost

Israel has never balanced its books since inception and is propped up by the US Treasury and therefore the US Taxpayer. To suggest as Melanie Phillips does that the only reason for this cosy relationship is that israel is a great ally to have in that region is ludicrous. In fact it is israel who, since World War II, have been the prime reason for the instability of the region. For Ms Phillips to then suggest that Israel never wanted the Iraq war is pure farce. Why do you have to be anti-semitic to recognise facts?

Nick Biskinis

Greagory Lauder-Frost; you say that Israel is the reason the Middle East is unstable. Really? Is Israel the major reason Iraq is such a mess, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia struggles with Fundamentalists etc etc? On Iraq for example, who was the USA's biggest ally with the invasion? On instability and interference in the Middle East, wasn't England the country that acted up the colonial part and imposed corrupt regimes for oil (eg the Shah), or waged war on Nasser etc. Didn't we also do deals with Saddam in the 1980s before deciding that he was morally unacceptable? Not that i'm defending the wrongs that Israel has done, but it strikes me that English critics of Israel, particularly those on the Left use that country vicariously as means of assuaging themselves of Colonial guilt ie it's al Israel's fault not 'ours' in any way.

Stuart

"Israel has never balanced its books since inception and is propped up by the US Treasury and therefore the US Taxpayer. To suggest as Melanie Phillips does that the only reason for this cosy relationship is that israel is a great ally to have in that region is ludicrous. In fact it is israel who, since World War II, have been the prime reason for the instability of the region. For Ms Phillips to then suggest that Israel never wanted the Iraq war is pure farce. Why do you have to be anti-semitic to recognise facts?" Because they aren't facts and so your comment is motivated by something else. Even Mearshiemer states that Israel lobby said to the USA "don't waste your time on Iraq" Israel is NOT 'propped-up' by USA money. Israel has a thriving economy and is World Class in electronics, technology, medicine and arms. Why not comment on how Egypt and Pakistan ARE propped-up by the USA Why not comment on how the Palestinians receive MORE aid money per capita than any other people on Earth.

William

"Israel told the US from the start that Iraq was the wrong target and it should be attacking Iran instead; and so on and on." …Melanie Phillips…… So the Americans made a mistake. Is it anti-Semitic to ignore Israeli advice (Sharon's)? Is it too late for these arrogant Americans to hit the right country (and slaughter millions more...oops.) All will be well again soon when they attack Iran, right? So why are the Americans in Iraq? Can't they spell or read a map? I’m absolutely prepared to believe that the US has its own agenda, but perhaps Melanie Phillips can clarify what her views were on the Iraq invasion? She certainly gave me the impression that she and other Israeli sympathisers supported the war. Let's hope that Iraq is enough for them now (and it does not go “on and on”) and the Jews (who loathe or support Bush) can clearly voice their opposition, with the majority, to yet another (and very dangerous) war in the Middle East.

John Bolton

It is plain silly for anyone to deny the massive Jewish lobby in the USA and the wealth behind it and its ppolitical influence. Even Henry Ford (admittedly anti-semitic) was writing about it *before* WWII. I support Lauder-Frost's statement. The Middle-East was largely asleep before large-scale Jewish immgration into Palestine. Every British reference book and government enquiry between 1920 and 1950 refers to the Arab backlash this must ultimately cause. The subsequent expropriation (also well-recorded) of land and property from the Palestinians, many of whom had Ottoman Land Deeds to prove their ownership, plus the spoilation of towns and villages and the expulsion of the Palestinian inhabitants naturally lead to the Islamic fanaticism that we are now facing in this region. To deny this is pointless.

Nick Biskinis

John Bolton ('shureley shome mishtake?'): can you really link Jewish immigration into pre-war Palestine with Islamic fundamentalism today? Many Jewish immigrants were settled in Kibbutzes that were not expropriation of any land - in fact even under the British mandate Jewish immigration was restricted so that Arabs made up 70% of Mandate Palestine. Yes Arabs were forced to flee Israel after 1948, but equally so were Jews from Arab lands, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in 1974 etc etc. Wahhabism and the funding of militants by the Saudis from the 1970s onwards was a bigger factor in the generation of Al-Qaeda than Jewish refugees from pogroms. The Muslim Brotherhood developed in Egypt as a response to English Colonialism (though Egypt was not a British Colony per se, though run like one). The notion that Middle East unrest was the product of 'Jewish' forces at play is simply false - and as i say before is done by many here in the Uk who find the British record uncomfortable to deal with, so transfer guilt vicariously to Israel. There is only so much that can be explained away by one country. The complexities of the Middle East are such that it is easy - but wrong - to look for black and white answers that invariably never explain the whole situation. The Middle East was not 'asleep' until Jewish immigration - a somewhat patronising view of Arabs who themselves had been under Ottoman rule (Muslim, but not Arab). But perhaps a different question would be whether there was such a thing as 'Palestinian' nationalism before 1948 - the Arabs were offered a state in 1937 (under proposals by the Peel Commission) as well as 1948. Evan had there never been an Israel, the imposition of corrupt (but superficially pro-Western) regimes was a much more potent cause of resentment, poverty, nationalism then fundamentalism than the creation of one country alone. The Arab world, be it Christian, Muslim or indeed Jewish, and its complexities extends far beyond Israel/Palestine - so does its problems.

A.N.

I find this blog post very odd. While denying (in the first paragraph) you are tarring with the antisemitism brush all those who disagree with Israeli governmental policies, you proceed to spend the rest of the article doing exactly that, in a particularly underhand way. I would put it to you that the majority of those who oppose certain voices within Israel are themselves working to combat bigotry and to fight against ultranationalism - the cause of just about every major war in the 20th century

G Palmer

Re Dawkins. The man has shown himself for what he really is: a hypocritical weed behind the racist woe of good DR Watson. We must never stop reminding Dawkins that religious people have a right to believe what they believe...yet he attacks them.However, he was very silent in the Watson war when morally and scientifically he should have said to Watson...where is the evidence that black people are genetically inferior to white people? Dawkins should reflect that maybe his present position as a scientific monkey that dances to the tune of his tarnished betters such as Watson is the work of God not Darwin!

G Palmer

Re Dawkins. The man has shown himself for what he really is: a hypocritical weed behind the racist woe of good DR Watson. We must never stop reminding Dawkins that religious people have a right to believe what they believe...yet he attacks them.However, he was very silent in the Watson war when morally and scientifically he should have said to Watson...where is the evidence that black people are genetically inferior to white people? Dawkins should reflect that maybe his present position as a scientific monkey that dances to the tune of his tarnished betters such as Watson is the work of God not Darwin!

Iconoclash

vital strategic ally? psh. more like worst. idea. ever. a noose around our collective necks.

Iconoclash

actually, there was probably a time when havign the equivalent of 5 unsinkable aircraft carriers off their southern flank drove soviet frontal aviation mad. so i guess they served a purpose. past tense. now they only serve as a reminder of what george washington said about 'entangling alliances.' a disaster for everyone involved - 'nuff said.

Iconoclash

actually, there was probably a time when havign the equivalent of 5 unsinkable aircraft carriers off their southern flank drove soviet frontal aviation mad. so i guess they served a purpose. past tense. now they only serve as a reminder of what george washington said about 'entangling alliances.' a disaster for everyone involved - 'nuff said.

James

the most dangerous lies today are the propaganda that distorts rather than lies through selection and exageration. I think it is interesting that he picks on Jewish apparent influence whilst ignoring Saudi influence in say American policy, because in his opeing chapter he seems to give undue space to Jewish particularly Einstein. Could it be that he is rattled that Judaism is a religion 'of the book' that he feels shoudl fall into his remit of religions, and yet it desn seem really to fit the model of religion he is trying to attack, at all. Does this nag him? Especially note his somewhat random and thinly veiled perosnal attack of Prof Robert Winston. (Reminds me of aChinese saying that teh person who throws the first punch shows he's lost) Back to Einstein. Isn't it interesting how having accused fundamentalists (who he seems to equate with all religious people incredibly at times) of trying to claim E as one fo their own through selective quotes, he goes and does exactly the same thing by claiming him to be agood atheist really. It leaves one immediately form chapter 1 with the impression that he is as crude and unsubtle as the fundamentalists. Even more incredibly he actually quotes enough of E to giove uite a good indication of the subtlty and sophistication of his religious beliefs as one would expect, leaving you wondering if D is being simply dishonest, or if he really is as incapable as he seems to be of seeing subtler distinctions in faith than those of Atheist fundamentalist. Like someone who is colourblind and simply cannot see red and so claims everyone makes it up because they cant see it. Can he really not senses why E might sometiems say he is religious and does believe in God, and yet at teh same time say that he is reluctant to be labelled religious since peopl have so much baggae attached to God and rleigion that they will think he means something different to what he does. If it was as simple as being atheist E would have been capable of saying so. The fact even he struggles with language to try and give an intimation of what he sees surely is suggetsive tat teh ost abstarct concept of all is not reducable to such simple crude black white distinctions. On top of all that he even points to Spinoza as a religious philosopher who E feels captures something of how E sees God. So I was gobsmacked that after such a fair selection of material on E how he could possible conclude was atheist. It would be like China publishing all its human rights abuses and then saying they were a democracy. At least suppress the bits that might not lead to the impression you are trying to create and even better get others to draw their own conclusions based on this selection, and then you can prtend to hold up your hands innocently. like he does with the aforementioned Jewish influence in Gover. Is a serious alllegation of course to flag up sinc eit is the excuse given for so much anti Jewish racism within elements of Islam for example. Jews trying to take over the world etc, or the middle east or whatever it is.

Alex Moran

Two points, the first being to counter the absurd generalisations and incorrect assertions of Lee Jakeman. Firstly countries such as Germany and Britain use their influence in Tokyo or Washington etc all the time. Whatsmore even if evidence of this didn't flood the press you would be in no position to claim it didn't having no comments on what a countries government foes or doesn't do behind closed doors. Secondly to claim that Jews are selfserving and that this behaviour is pecular (did you mean particuar?) to them is a wildly incorrect assumption, that doesn't even need countering, it determines itself as worth ignoring with one read froma rational person. My other point concerns the defense of Richad Dawkins, who is anything but 'ignorant', being voted one of the trop three intelectals, best author on top of many awards that more than prove his depth of knowledge and intelligent. As for his remakrs about Jews they are not even related to anti-semitism; only insofar as he is anti-religion, pro-atheism, as most rational modern people tend to be. As usual, a quote of his has been taken and twisted wildly out of context.

T.D.Foster

I agree with Miss Melanie Philpps on many things and she knows this but,her biassed stand on the fascist state of Israelnot my words but those of Jeshajahu Leibowitz in his book,Gespraeche ueber Gott und die Welt,in which he also states that he is ashamed to be a citizen of a state whose president is a murderer-he was referring to Menachem Begin. I have argued with Rabbis and been insulted with the gibe of anti-semitism.They will not discuss only offend.

N Jakeman

G Palmer - in one breath you say Dawkins is outspoken in his criticism of religion by saying "We must never stop reminding Dawkins that religious people have a right to believe what they believe" First Dawkins has always upheld the right of people to believe what the want to believe. Ater all it is the religious amongst us who instant on blind adherence to the faith. No rights to the Northern Irish as to what religion they want to practice without both sides applying the rule of force, or the fanatical calls from some extremists to behead a rather simple school teacher in Sudan over the Teddy bear fiasco. How these religious bigoted views can be accepted as peoples 'rights' only because they are reliogious inspired is dubious. Secondly you branch off to attack Dawkins for NOT being outspoken enough - "and then that "morally and scientifically he should have said to Watson...where is the evidence that black people are genetically inferior to white people?"...". Why should Dawkins, a believer in free speech object to Watson's comment. If I remember rightly it was Watson's claim that due to pre-conceived political correctness, NO studies on racial differences are now being conducted as there is an assumption it is not true. To think otherwise is PC heresy, and THAT is bad science. Thus no-one can conduct such investigations without being labeled 'racist' and shunned from the scientific community, as was the very thing done to Dr Watson himself. Maybe Dawkins is wisely steering clear of the controversy because if anyone could link him to racism, he will be discredited full stop, and we would all lose his valuable insight on the absurdity of religion.