Dawkins : comments on the "jewish lobby"

[Rrose Selavy]

Well checked the tags, surprised this hasn't been mentioned, maybe I missed it ,

Dawkins comments on the "Jewish lobby" causing a hoo-harr with some commentators here:

original report here:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2180660,00.html

comment here:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/10/dawkins-on-the-.html

follow up here:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/10/a-little-over-a.html

 

[Malachi151]

I have no idea what he really meant, but I will say that it was a stupid statement to make.

He could have made the same point without saying it the way that he did, and indeed the way that he said it is wrong.

He could have simply said that many groups exert a disproportionate influence on American policy in relation to their percentage of the population, Jewish groups being an example of relatively small groups of people that have used good organization and lobbying to successfully advocate their interests.

Something like that, but I probably wouldn't have even gone there either.

I much prefer to compare the interests and plight of atheists to that of homosexuals. While gays still have a way to go, they have been very successful in changing public opinion through a public relations campaign and the media over the past 20 years.

There are a lot of similarities between being gay and being an atheist, in terms of "coming out" to ones family, public stigma, fear on behalf of those unfamiliar with it, etc.

Atheists certainly outnumber homosexuals by a wide margin, but I would say that homosexuals have a larger overt impact on our culture and government than atheists do.

 

[tkingdoll]

I thought he was holding up the Jewish lobby as a successful example? He's saying 'here's a religious themed lobby group which has achieved some results, let's follow that model'. No?

 

[Malachi151]

I thought he was holding up the Jewish lobby as a successful example? He's saying 'here's a religious themed lobby group which has achieved some results, let's follow that model'. No?

I think that was the intent, but it comes across as a double edged "compliment".

 

[Beerina]

Remember that in the US, there are semi-professional (and probably full professional) people who do nothing but watch for stuff like this and then immediately bring it to the public forefront for political or self-enrichment reasons. That's how they got Don Imus -- a left-wing guy who had a hobby of listening to conservative talk show guys for the purpose of finding any funny-sounding statements, then passing it off to the outrage machine.

Woo-woo conspiracy theory? Hardly, the guy himself described it that way.

 

[JoeEllison]

The American pro-Israel lobby groups DO wield a disproportionate amount of influence relative to their size, a fact that I'm sure that they're pretty proud of.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The American pro-Israel lobby groups DO wield a disproportionate amount of influence relative to their size, a fact that I'm sure that they're pretty proud of.

And if that was what he said there would be no problem. But it wasn't.

What he said was that the Jewish lobby "more or less monopolise American foreign policy". I rather doubt they would agree with this claim. It was a dumb thing to say because the discussion will be about whether they do or not, rather than about anything to do with atheism.

 

[MWare]

I read this article a few weeks back about how the Jewish lobby is assisting Hindu groups in developing their own lobbying efforts.

Interesting read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/us/02hindu.html

FYI - NY Times online no longer requires paid registration to read their articles

 

[ponderingturtle]

The American pro-Israel lobby groups DO wield a disproportionate amount of influence relative to their size, a fact that I'm sure that they're pretty proud of.

The problem is labeling the Jewish Israeli lobbies as being just Jewish.

In most cases this would be acceptable but in this case it falls really close to many modern and historic antisemitic conspiracy theories.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think that was the intent, but it comes across as a double edged "compliment".

In certain demographic areas, anything coming from an atheist will come across as that.

 

[Meadmaker]

It was a dumb thing to say because the discussion will be ....

It was a dumb thing to say, but I disagree with your reasoning. It was a dumb thing to say because it was a dumb thing to think.

 

[Lucky]

Remember that in the US, there are semi-professional (and probably full professional) people who do nothing but watch for stuff like this and then immediately bring it to the public forefront for political or self-enrichment reasons.

That's not what happened at all, it was a statement by Dawkins to a British journalist. The interview was first published in the Guardian, and then commented on in the Times.

The American pro-Israel lobby groups DO wield a disproportionate amount of influence relative to their size, a fact that I'm sure that they're pretty proud of.

It's fine for Dawkins admirers (and anyone else) to give him the benefit of any doubt, but saying there's nothing wrong with talking about the "Israel lobby" when you have it in front of you that he actually said (and meant) the "Jewish lobby" shows an unwillingness to face facts.

The problem is that there's nothing new about this kind of thing from Dawkins (but you won't see much mention of it on this forum). His history of using his public position to bash:
1) Israel
2) Judaism (along with other religions)
leaves him open to suspicions of anti-Semitism, and obliges him to express himself with care and dissociate himself and his views from the anti-Semites who quote him approvingly.

He was one of the initiators of this petition for a moratorium on research co-operation with Israeli academics. Several of his co-organisers went on to organise the campaign for a full academic boycott of Israel and support the sacking of Israeli academics from the editorial board of a British academic journal. At this point Dawkins changed his mind:

Richard Dawkins, the Oxford professor for the public understanding of science, said he now "regretted" signing the Guardian letter.
"While I remain opposed to Israel's actions, I have had second thoughts about whether a boycott is the right way to censure Israel. The fear is that it would be counter-productive," he said.

Perhaps he realised that attacking academic freedom on the grounds of nationality is not, after all, a good way to promote international understanding and peace (he appears to have foolishly overlooked this point initially).

Credit to him for admitting a mistake, but:
1) He regards it as tactical error; he's never acknowledged the principle involved.
2) It hasn't prevented him from continuing to make similar mistakes, as we see.

 

[JoeEllison]

The problem is labeling the Jewish Israeli lobbies as being just Jewish.

In most cases this would be acceptable but in this case it falls really close to many modern and historic antisemitic conspiracy theories.

The problem is that they are proudly Jewish... as long as no one who isn't Jewish calls them that. There's an oversensitivity to anything that mentions the word "Jewish" along with anything even vaguely negative, as though it is proof-positive of antisemitism.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The problem is that they are proudly Jewish... as long as no one who isn't Jewish calls them that. There's an oversensitivity to anything that mentions the word "Jewish" along with anything even vaguely negative, as though it is proof-positive of antisemitism.

Somewhat, they are proudly Jewish, and support Israel for that reason, but there are anti Israeli Jews, so that makes it not more attackable than if there was near total support for Israel in the Jewish community.

It is an understandable miss statement, and it is predictably used in this fashion.

 

[Yiab]

What he said was that the Jewish lobby "more or less monopolise American foreign policy". I rather doubt they would agree with this claim. It was a dumb thing to say because the discussion will be about whether they do or not, rather than about anything to do with atheism.

No, that's not quite what he said.
That is to say, he said that with a qualifier:

yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see.

(emphasis mine)

This is something completely ignored by the author of the follow-up linked in the OP as well. The statement quoted was not a statement about the actual influence exerted by the Jewish lobby regarding American foreign policy, rather it was a statement about the public perception of that influence, something which the article author acknowledges during his criticism of Dawkins' statement:

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.

(emphasis mine)

Clearly the author agrees that the pro-Israel Jewish lobby is commonly misattributed total power over American foreign policy, but he mistakes Dawkins for stating it as fact rather than as popular opinion.

Additionally, because I'm in the mood for nitpicking:

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.

While I agree that "Jews support Israel" is not uniformly true, it is firstly statistically accurate (most Jews do support Israel, I think) and not even close to what Dawkins was implying. What prof. Dawkins was implying was the the Jewish lobby supports Israel, which I think is something generally accepted to be true.
The author of this article conflates "Jews" and "the Jewish lobby" in order to accuse Richard Dawkins of that very mistake!

I make no claims to know prof. Dawkins' personal beliefs on this subject, I am merely reporting by reading of what he was reported to have said in this case, using only the referenced articles as source material. It may very well be the case that he intended the comment to be understood in the way that many people are reading it, but I doubt that to be the case.

 

[Lucky]

The statement quoted was not a statement about the actual influence exerted by the Jewish lobby regarding American foreign policy, rather it was a statement about the public perception of that influence

(talking about "[they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see")

That really will not do. The rest of the quote, and especially the sentence immediately following that statement, make his meaning absolutely clear (assuming he's correctly quoted):
1) The Jewish lobby is fantastically successful, despite being small (stated as a fact).
2) It seems to many people, including himself, that they virtually determine American foreign policy.
3) Atheists need to do likewise.

If you change the meaning of 2) to: "Many people think that the Jewish lobby virtually determines American foreign policy, but that's not true" (or "... but I have no opinion on that") then the quote makes no sense at all.

As for the phrase "as far as many people can see", it's there to support his view by pointing out that many people share it (which is undeniably the case). Rather feeble support, but that's the best he can do in the way of evidence.

The full quote:

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.

I am cautious about condemning him too strongly for his remarks, though, as they were was spoken, not written; also, we don't have the full text of the interview. Context, emphasis and even punctuation could matter.

 

[Beerina]

Richard Dawkins, the Oxford professor for the public understanding of science, said he now "regretted" signing the Guardian letter.
"While I remain opposed to Israel's actions, I have had second thoughts about whether a boycott is the right way to censure Israel. The fear is that it would be counter-productive," he said.

Holy crap! A guy who made a mistake and admitted it. See, if he believed the Bible, he'd know everything important and thus never make mistakes.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It was a dumb thing to say, but I disagree with your reasoning. It was a dumb thing to say because it was a dumb thing to think.

It was a dumb thing to think because it is wrong.

It was a dumb thing to say both because it shows you think dumb things AND because the discussion will be about that statement, not the argument you are trying to advance.

 

[Lucky]

Richard Dawkins, the Oxford professor for the public understanding of science, said he now "regretted" signing the Guardian letter.
"While I remain opposed to Israel's actions, I have had second thoughts about whether a boycott is the right way to censure Israel. The fear is that it would be counter-productive," he said.

Holy crap! A guy who made a mistake and admitted it. See, if he believed the Bible, he'd know everything important and thus never make mistakes.

Well, it was rather a grudging admission. He was a prominent supporter of a campaign for a limited academic boycott of Israel. When some fellow-campaigners openly implemented this policy, and began to call for a more comprehensive boycott, he expressed surprise and dismay and claimed it wasn't what he'd intended. He never admitted he'd done something stupid and wrong. And he won't this time.

It was a dumb thing to think because it is wrong.

It was a dumb thing to say both because it shows you think dumb things AND because the discussion will be about that statement, not the argument you are trying to advance.

I agree (though I'd say it's worse than dumb). And we can't discount the possibility that he did it deliberately to be controversial and get a lot of media attention. That would still be dumb, of course.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

It would be playing very cheap and idiotic gotcha! politics to accuse Richard Dawkins of anti-Semitism...but he did just- perhaps completely inadvertently and not the way he intended at all and only for a moment-come off like a Polish housewife. Or the parade of idiots featured in Protocols of Zion.

I'm puzzled that he repeated a well-known (and I think inaccurate) racist cliche I've heard for years but I think it's just an unfortunate choice of words.