Comment by vr46 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by vr46 | Hacker News Reader

We could do with wider knowledge of a complicated man. My friend's husband wrote a fabulous play about a short period in Dahl's life centred around antisemitism, which was directed by Nicholas Hytner at the Royal Court. I suspect that it was done to improve public relations after various overblown controversies there, but that is not to take away from the writing and performance.

The other context around Israel invading Lebanon in 1982 was given to me (I was too young at the time to have a clue about anything) by another (Jewish) friend, a biographer of Primo Levi, who said, "I believe Israel had the sympathy of the world until they invaded Lebanon," in a conversation about how those who claim to be virtuous by invoking victimhood.

Dahl never invoked that himself, but with wider knowledge of his life and a more critical view of Israeli history, we can see what a complex polarized mess this is with little chance of redemption for either, although it is interesting that one man has generated disproportionate column inches compared to a country.

I'm trying to understand this comment. Are you saying that Dahl's antisemitism is ameliorated by the fact that Israel attacked the PLO in Lebanon? And are you claiming that journalists have written more about Roald Dahl's antisemitism than about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians?

I'd like to read what you're saying in the most graceful way possible, but it really sounds like standard antisemitic beliefs about how it's really the Jews' fault that people are antisemitic, and that they control the media anyway.

Whether or not Dahl was influenced by the behavior of the state of Israel, he extrapolated his hatred towards a group of people. It's not really more complicated than that: it's wrong to be anti-Russian because of the actions of Putin, it's wrong to be anti-semitic because of the actions of Israel.

Whether or not you agree with the state of Israel's actions in recent years, it's very concerning to me to see comments like this that seem to justify or explain away racial hatred. You have to disentangle the two.

Is it wrong? The rest of the world is worse because Americans picked the current administration. I have a hard time articulating the reasons they shouldn't hate Americans in the abstract for their (our) selfishness.

Apply the same to hyper aggressive bees. The hive is the only thing dangerous, but you correctly say you hate bees, not this specific hive, or this specific bee.

I personally hate the (ficticious rhetorical) culture of the southern states because I disagree with their position and beliefs about human rights and other ethical problems. Am I wrong to do that? What nuance am I unable to see?

I take this point but would offer that the culture you reference is also quite real. By contrast, in southern cities you will find some of the most impassioned progressives you’ll ever meet. There is nuance.

The difference is agency or choice.

A Jewish person has no agency in their ethnic or cultural heritage. US citizens do have a choice in voting and US citizenship can be revoked. You cannot change your ethnicity.

US citizenship cannot be really revoked for natural born citizens. The US can't really make someone stateless because where would you deport them to?

Yes it is wrong. You don't punish any one individual for something another different individual has done. This is a basic moral principal. Half of US voters voted against Donald Trump. The chaos and pain he causes is not on them. Many Jews were appalled and angered by the invasion of Lebanon. They're not responsible for what the Israeli government did. Humans are not bees. We don't have a queen, we don't have a hive mind. This group think, that Americans should all be judged as a whole, that Jews are all an indistinguishable mass, is the very definition of bigotry and prejudice. This is what MLK meant when he said we should be judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin. I am me, not whatever group you want to toss me into. So, yes, it's wrong.

> Humans are not bees. We don't have a queen, we don't have a hive mind. This group think, that Americans should all be judged as a whole, [...] is the very definition of bigotry and prejudice.

I don't agree with this. The behavior of a hive is distinctly different from the behavior of a bee. The way a hive behaves is bigger than the sum of the actions of the bees. The US as a country also has this same emergent intelligence to it.

> [...] an indistinguishable mass, is the very definition of bigotry and prejudice.

You'll notice I said hate Americans, and not hate Sally, or Bobby, or Jane. I'm not targeting nor blaming individuals, I agree with you, that is wrong for me to assign someone into a group they don't belong in. But is it wrong to hate the behavior and intent of said grouping? Is it wrong to blame people who willingly self-select to associate with said group?

Quoting from above

> it's wrong to be anti-Russian because of the actions of Putin

Is it? If I'm mad at Russia, so I refuse to interact with any russian company. That's being anti-russian, I'd assume? Is that wrong?

What if I don't like the family next door because they lived in Russia before the moved to the US. That would be wrong; until I point out they're still proudly Russian, and they support their former country. Then is it wrong to dislike them in that case? That's still anti-russian, no?

> You'll notice I said hate Americans, and not hate Sally, or Bobby, or Jane

I don't even know what this means. What does it mean to hate Americans if you don't hate, you know, Americans, like Sally or Bobby or Jane? What exactly are you hating?

You don't hate Americans, you hate Trump and his cabal. You hate the people who voted for him. Good for you. Do you also hate the Americans who voted against Trump because of the ones who voted for him? If yes, then that's absolutely bigotry. If no, then you could just as rationally say you love Americans, because, I mean, look at all the Americans who opposed Trump?

You say you don't hate Sally or Bobby or Jane, but that's exactly what you do when you hate Americans.

> That's still anti-russian, no?

No. That's anti-fascist, or anti-authoritarian, or anti-belligerent, or anti-whatever it is about their support that you don't like. That's judging them as individuals because of what they as individuals think. Disliking them just because they're Russion, regardless of that they think about Putin's government, that would be bigotry.

"I have a hard time articulating the reasons they shouldn't hate Americans in the abstract for their (our) selfishness."

I'm an American you truly hates Trump and is suffering under his rule as mach as anyone.

I think what they meant is it’s wrong to be anti-Russian, while nonetheless being anti-Russia, because of Putin.

Individual Russians may or may not have much to do with Purim’s invasion of Ukraine - the same way individual Americans may or may not have much to do with Trump’s fumbling of supporting Ukraine’s defense efforts.

I think therein lies the complexity of the problem when the state itself maintains a population record where citizenship and nationality have been separated, and "Israeli" nationality does not exist, only "Jewish" exists. I believe this was also confirmed by the Supreme Court there in order to ensure a clear link or bond between all Jewish people all over the world. Anyway, what do I know.

I am not trying to explain away Dahl's comments, merely illustrating the complexity underlining all these arguments, and especially ones which allow Israel and its lobbyists to swarm over the arts in the UK and bully them if showing any sympathy for the Palestinians, which is no better than the torrent of antisemitic abuse meted out when there's sympathy for Jewish people.

> and "Israeli" nationality does not exist, only "Jewish" exists

This is facially untrue: there are over two million non-Jewish Israeli nationals[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel

This article underlines the point I made. Israel maintains separate data on citizenship and nationality on their population, and "Israeli" is not a "nationality" in that database. Of course Arab nationals of Israel have "Israeli" on their passports, but they are not "Israeli" in that database.

There are two different things here: what non-Jewish citizens of Israel identify as, and what their functional status is. The first is a component of the world’s most intractable conflict; the second is a question of nationality in the most basic sense: citizenship, identification on passports, etc.

The second sense is the one I’m interested in, and in that one there are plenty of non-Jewish Israeli nationals. They have every right (and plenty of cause) to not identify as such, but that’s the situation as it concerns citizenship, voting rights, etc.

TL;DR: nationality gets used with at least two different meanings in the I/P conflict; one is intractable and the other is straightforward. The straightforward is worth remembering, because far-right Israelis have a vested interest in eliminating it and imposing an ethnic definition of nationality.

No dispute from me, simply pointing that the state itself pursues a different direction than most on this subject by separating the two things.

On your final point, I think we may well be seeing a theocratic majority there quite soon, will be interesting to see how that goes.

It's complicated but I think what they're getting at is that the national demographics / census data for Israel does not have an "Israeli" nationality.

>and "Israeli" nationality does not exist, only "Jewish" exists.

This lie lies at the heart of all of the state's attempts to color fundamentally anti genocide, anti genocide and antiracist criticism of the state as anti semitic.

The country does not represent Jews, just a rather abhorrent form of racism.

He wrote two books about his life, 'Boy' and 'Going Solo'

Were the "various overblown controversies" when he said "There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it's a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean there is always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason"?

Or when he said the United States is "utterly dominated by the great Jewish financial institutions over there"?

Or when he said "I am certainly anti-Israel, and I have become anti-Semitic"?

Or are there others?

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/07/opinion/l-roald-dahl-also...

No, not Dahl, the Royal Court - they had a character/villain in a play, Rare Earth Mettle, with a Jewish name, which I think is hardly the theatre's fault, and previously a play by Caryl Churchill in 2009.

I don't understand how either of those, said in the mid 1900s, get the man cancelled in 2025. We have heard these thoughts countless times in modern day to less reaction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com