logo
Roald Dahl's genteel anti-Semitism is tragically all too alive in today's Britain

Roald Dahl's genteel anti-Semitism is tragically all too alive in today's Britain

Yahoo12-04-2025
One of the many confounding contradictions in the Jewish experience is that, on the one hand, Jews are made to feel as if they are making everything 'about themselves', when really, we are often told, 'nobody cares'.
But on the other hand – and this is especially obvious following major military action by Israel – everything points to a genuine, quantifiable global obsession with us, so powerful it can shift policy, culture and even the law itself.
In British politics, 2,000 miles from Israel, four pro-Palestinian independent MPs were elected last year on a platform of antipathy towards the Jewish state.
And on stage, the most buzzed about play in London right now is Giant – Mark Rosenblatt's drama about Roald Dahl's anti-Semitism. After its acclaimed run at the Royal Court last autumn, it is opening in the West End in two weeks' time.
The play is based on an imagined conference with his Jewish publishers, convened to manage the fallout of the 1983 review Dahl wrote in the Literary Review of the book God Cried, about the Israel-Lebanon war of 1982.
Gathered are Dahl's real-life London publisher, Tom Maschler, played by Elliot Levey, and the fictional fiery New York progressive Jessie Stone, plus Dahl's conflict-averse lover Liccy.
The conversation takes place in Dahl's Bedfordshire home, which is being renovated. He has divorced his wife, is about to marry Liccy, and is on the verge of publishing The Witches. He is not particularly worried – rightly. He never did have anything to fear by way of consequences.
This despite the fact that Dahl's anti-Semitism was straightforward and explicit, leaving absolutely nothing to the imagination. He made clear that he bought every last trope, from blood libel to effeminacy and cowardice, to control of the world's purse-strings.
'Never before in the history of man has a race of people switched so rapidly from being much-pitied victims to barbarous murderers,' wrote Dahl. 'Never before has a race of people generated so much sympathy around the world and then, in the space of a lifetime, succeeded in turning that sympathy into hatred and revulsion. It is as though a group of much-loved nuns in charge of an orphanage had suddenly turned around and started murdering all the children.' Charming.
Mourning his rose-tinted memories of pre-Israel Muslim Palestinians, he blames 'the Jews' who 'came pouring in with American money and American guns and created the State of Israel and out went the Palestinians'.
He goes on and on with his deranged version of history: 'We also know all about the wars with Egypt and Syria which need never have taken place if only Israel had stuck to her part of the bargain and been willing to share the land with those she had kicked out. We know all that. But what we had not seen until June 1982 was a new and violently aggressive Israel whose armed forces moved in Lebanon and murdered more than 25,000 people, mostly civilian men, women and children, and severely injured…' The latter canard, about Israel as thirsty for the blood of innocents, is achingly familiar.
Good for Rosenblatt for zoning in on the review. It has it all, showing how Israel functions as an irresistible magnet and obsession for anti-Semites. As recalled by the priest and writer Michael Coren, a real-life off-stage character in Giant, Dahl moved easily between loathing of Israel in full-throated anti-Semitic language, to not even bothering with the Israel bit.
Coren wrote recently about an interview he had with Dahl for the New Statesman, following the publication of the review, in which the author of James and the Giant Peach noted: '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's always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere. Even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason.'
All this might have seemed shocking once. But no longer. The bit excusing Hitler could be found on any number of social media accounts, including by public figures, in recent years. Reading Dahl's review, I felt recognition and familiarity, the sense that Dahl is just saying with bluntness what our culture swims with, from high to low culture: the demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel (as opposed to 'criticism'), and with that, the implication that 'never again' should be struck off the list of post-Holocaust ethical axioms.
Israel is the backstop and the guarantee for 'never again', so those whose passions equate to denying Israel security and safety at best, and at worst (though they mean the same thing), saying the whole Jewish state is an illegitimate and evil enterprise we ought to commit ourselves to punishing or dismantling, are the children of Dahl – just with less talent.
So the play, which I have no doubt is as finely crafted as the reviews say it is, is not one I plan to see; I'd feel like I was sitting at a real dinner table in 21st-century Britain or America, and not in a good way. That Dahl is humanised and his genius not underplayed or diluted is welcome, but it's not a spectacle I'd choose for a night off.
What Rosenblatt is doing admirably is forcing a kind of reckoning. Dahl's anti-Semitism never seemed to cause him, or society, any real trouble – apart from the roiling rage it inspired in Jews who knew of it, but who (like my parents) none the less continued reading his stories.
Today too, vicious expressions of anti-Zionism, which slip into clear anti-Semitism, only leave a short-term ripple of disapproval, if that. At most there is some not-really-cancelling of its starrier proponents. It's good that the artwork of both Dahl and his anti-Semitic successors remain uncancelled; it's just a shame that his lifelong obsession with Jews and Israel, to the point of speaking defensively of Hitler, is not nearly as unfamiliar as it ought to be.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Amanda Knox had ‘chills' watching Hulu series on her life
Amanda Knox had ‘chills' watching Hulu series on her life

The Hill

time10 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Amanda Knox had ‘chills' watching Hulu series on her life

Amanda Knox has reacted to the actress who plays her in the new Hulu limited series 'The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox.' Knox lauded Grace Van Patten for the portrayal, telling People that her performance gave her 'chills,' and Van Patten has the 'ability to just take on the whimsy but the gravitas of this role.' 'I felt like I could finally grieve the young person that I was,' an emotional Knox told the magazine at the Aug. 19 premiere screening at the New York Historical Society in New York City. 'Someone recently said that what happened is someone stole my sparkle. They didn't just steal my freedom; they stole my sparkle.' She added, 'And seeing her bring it back again — I'm just so grateful to her, that she's honored that for me.' 'The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox' The new series tells the true story of Knox, who was convicted of murder twice in relation to the death of her British roommate, Meredith Kercher, while studying abroad in Italy in 2007. Knox spent four years in an Italian jail before she was exonerated in 2015 by Italy's highest court. The eight-part series, which former White House aide Monica Lewinsky serves as a producer, chronicles the wrongful conviction and how the ordeal has impacted her family, Kercher's family and Knox's boyfriend at the time, Raffaele Sollecito, who was also convicted and then acquitted for Kercher's death, according to NPR. Meredith Kercher's family reacts to show Kercher's sister, Stephanie, chose to remember her 'for her own fight for life,' she told The Guardian in November 2024, when the series began filming in Italy. Stephanie Kercher told The Guardian her family found it 'difficult to understand' the purpose of the show. 'We will forever feel this indescribable void, but we live by Meredith's standards with dignity,' she said at the time. In March, Knox appeared on NewsNation's 'Banfield' to promote her book ' Free: My Search for Meaning ' and revealed details about her time in prison, which she said was 'dehumanizing' and rife with sexual harassment. 'I was also being highly sexualized in the media as this whore who would go with anybody. I think some male guards got the idea that if they could just find themselves alone in a room with me, they could take advantage of that,' Knox told Ashleigh Banfield at the time. On Van Patten's performance, Knox told People, 'Everyone I know who has seen this has just been like, 'How did she do that? How?'' She added, 'She is incredible, and I'm so grateful to her because I feel like that is something that I've struggled with for so long, is how much people have rendered me two-dimensional. And she finally honors that young person that I was and the person I am today.' Critics have had mixed reactions to the show, with Vox saying that the character portrayals are 'uneven and unsatisfying.' The outlet added that the show's attempts to highlight Kercher are 'shallow' since she and Knox only knew one another for a few weeks before her murder. The Hulu series premiered Wednesday, Aug. 20.

Judge denies Justice Department request to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts
Judge denies Justice Department request to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts

Los Angeles Times

time10 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Judge denies Justice Department request to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts

NEW YORK — A federal judge who presided over the sex trafficking case against financier Jeffrey Epstein has rejected the government's request to unseal grand jury transcripts. The ruling Wednesday by Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan came after the judge presiding over the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, also turned down the government's request. Barring reversal on appeal, Berman's decision forecloses the possibility of grand jury testimony being released now that three judges have reached the same conclusion. A federal judge in Florida declined to release grand jury documents from an investigation there in 2005 and 2007. The rulings are a collective repudiation of the Justice Department's effort to divert attention away from its stated refusal to release a massive trove of records in its possession and make clear that the still-sealed court documents contain none of the answers likely to satisfy the immense public interest in the case. President Trump had called for the release of transcripts amid rumors and criticism about his long-ago involvement with Epstein. During last year's presidential campaign, Trump promised to release files related to Epstein, but he was met with criticism — including from many of his own supporters — when the small number of records released by his Justice Department lacked new revelations. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on Wednesday. Berman said the information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts 'pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice.' The Justice Department had informed Berman that the only witness to testify before the Epstein grand jury was an FBI agent who, the judge noted, 'had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay.' The agent testified over two days, on June 18, 2019, and July 2, 2019. The entire transcript was 70 pages. The rest of the grand jury presentation consisted of a PowerPoint slideshow shown during the June 18 session and a call log shown during the July 2 session, which ended with grand jurors voting to indict Epstein. Both of those will also remain sealed, Berman ruled. Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence after her conviction on sex trafficking charges for helping Epstein sexually abuse girls and young women. She was recently transferred from a prison in Florida to a prison camp in Texas. Epstein died in jail awaiting trial. Maxwell's case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the Justice Department's statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up. Since then, officials in Trump's Republican administration have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts. 'The government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein file,' Berman wrote in an apparent reference to the Justice Department's refusal to release additional records on its own while simultaneously moving to unseal grand jury transcripts. 'By comparison,' Berman added, 'the instant grand jury motion appears to be a 'diversion' from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government's possession. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged conduct.' Meanwhile, Maxwell was interviewed at a Florida courthouse weeks ago by Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, and the House Oversight Committee had also said that it wanted to speak with Maxwell. Her lawyers said they would be open to an interview but only if the panel were to ensure immunity from prosecution. In a letter to Maxwell's lawyers, Rep. James Comer, the committee chair, wrote that the committee was willing to delay the deposition until after the resolution of Maxwell's appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal is expected to be resolved in late September. Comer wrote that although Maxwell's testimony was 'vital' to the Republican-led investigation into Epstein, the committee would not provide immunity or any questions in advance of her testimony, as was requested by her team. Neumeister and Sisak write for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

Gabbard's Revenge Purge Immediately Runs Into a Major Problem
Gabbard's Revenge Purge Immediately Runs Into a Major Problem

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Gabbard's Revenge Purge Immediately Runs Into a Major Problem

Tulsi Gabbard may have broken the law by publicly identifying dozens of current and former officials while revoking their security clearances, according to a national security lawyer. Gabbard revealed that 37 people have been targeted in the clearance purge ordered by President Trump, accusing them without evidence of 'politicizing and manipulating intelligence, leaking classified intelligence without authorization, and/or committing intentional egregious violations of tradecraft standards.' Gabbard made the announcement—which comes after Trump stripped the security clearance of his political opponents—by posting a memo from her office on X. The list of 37 individuals targeted includes intelligence officials who concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election, as well as those accused by far-right activist Laura Loomer of lacking loyalty to Trump, according to Axios. Mark Zaid, an attorney who represents intelligence officers and who is suing the Trump administration to have his own stripped security clearance restored, suggested Gabbard may have landed herself in legal trouble by making the memo public. 'Can you say 'Privacy Act violation'? I certainly can,' Zaid wrote in a post on X. 'Further proof of weaponization and politicization. The vast majority of these individuals are not household names & are dedicated public servants who have worked across multiple presidential administrations.' Zaid—who previously represented a whistleblower who accused Trump of attempting to extort Ukraine for dirt on former President Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 election—told Axios that a person's security clearance 'is maintained in a protected Privacy Act System of records.' He added the government 'cannot simply release that information without written consent from the individual or the existence of a Routine Use, which I do not believe exists for this purpose.' Those who lost clearances reportedly include officials who signed a letter supporting Trump's first impeachment trial, when he was accused of threatening to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless President Volodymyr Zelensky agreed to investigate Hunter Biden's business dealings ahead of the 2020 election. Others were targeted online by Loomer, an extremist and conspiracy theorist who has taken credit for multiple people being removed from the Trump administration, citing reasons such as their prior service in the Obama or Biden administrations. 'Thank you, Tulsi! MORE SCALPS,' Loomer posted while sharing Gabbard's memo. In response to Zaid's remarks, White House Spokesman Davis Ingle told the Daily Beast: 'President Trump promised to end the weaponization of government against American citizens which is why Director Gabbard rightfully directed the revocation of 37 security clearances from current and former intelligence officials who abused their positions of public trust.' The Trump administration has stripped numerous national security officials and political opponents of their clearances as part of the president's campaign of retribution. Those affected include Trump's 2024 election rival, former Vice President Kamala Harris. New York Attorney General Letitia James—who prosecuted Trump for filing fraudulent financial filings for years—was also targeted, as was former president Joe Biden and his entire family. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Beast.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store