1 min read
Far more worrying than Richard Dawkins' words are the comments left on Daniel Finkelstein's post which are overwhelmingly in defence of Dawkins, along the lines of 'he's right - the Jewish lobby is overwheening', 'don't call critics of Israel antisemites' and 'you're being oversensitive, like so many Jews'.
[BTW, I've yet to see an example of anyone remotely serious calling a critic of Israeli policy an antisemite for arguing against Israeli policy. I know of no one well disposed to Israel who would dream of confusing the two. Just look at the Israeli media if you want to see full-on criticism of the Israeli government. But what's striking is that, all too often, those who are indeed genuinely anti-semitic - who oppose the existence of Jews, not just of Israel - hide behind that distinction.]
Why are such comments as those on the Times' site more worrying than Dawkins ignorant bigotry? Because I'd venture to suggest that readers of the Times' blog are pretty normal people and if that's the consensus view of such people, Jews in Britain really do have cause to worry.
Here's Melanie Phillips' take:
In vain does one point out that the power of the Jewish lobby in America pales beside that of Saudi Arabia; that the most powerful lobby on behalf of Israel is composed of the Christian evangelicals; that the main reason the US supports Israel now is because it views it as a vital strategic ally in the region; that the vast majority of American Jews are Democrats who loathe President Bush and have always been opposed to the war in Iraq; that 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.
It