Poll: Rational criticism or anti-Semitism?
posted at 12:55 pm on March 26, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
As many Hot Air readers know, I am a fan of editorial cartoons. The best of them can hit to the heart of issues with an image and concise wit that might otherwise elude an army of essayists and talking heads. I’ve admired the work of the late Jeff MacNelly, Michael Ramirez, Tom Toles, Mike Luckovich, and a host of others, even while I’ve disagreed with them on occasion (and sometimes often).
In general, I don’t have much admiration for Pat Oliphant, as I find him to be a hysteric and irrational. In 2004, he published an execrable attack on Navy veterans who opposed John Kerry as resumé padders, apparently unaware of the irony. Now Oliphant finds himself under fire for alleged anti-Semitism for his latest cartoon, a criticism of Israel’s policies towards Gaza:
Gothamist covers the controversy (via Lawhawk, who has some thoughts as well):
Another day, another political cartoon controversy! This time the center of attention is Pat Oliphant, the world’s most widely syndicated political cartoonist, and his recent cartoon depicting a goose-stepping soldier pushing a giant Star of David shark into a defenseless woman and child. In case anyone misses the subtle message here, the woman is labeled “Gaza,” and the illustration is tagged “jackboot justice” on the United Press Syndicate site. …
One thing is certain: with over 8 million opinionated New Yorkers, and almost as many media pundits eager to pile on any easily-digested controversy, this one’s sure to keep everyone busy well into next week. Will Oliphant apologize? Where’s Al Sharpton? And why isn’t the baby in the cartoon lobbing a missile? Naturally, Abraham Foxman from the Anti-Defamation League is readily available for television interviews, Op-Ed commissions, county fair appearances, etc. He tells CBS 2, “It is hideous. It is anti-Semitic. It employs Nazi imagery by portraying Israel as a jack-booted, goose-stepping headless apparition. The implication is of an Israeli policy without a head or a heart.”
But is it really anti-Semitic? The Star of David is a symbol for all Jews, but it is also the symbol of the State of Israel. Criticizing Israeli policy for not having a head or a heart doesn’t cross the line into anti-Semitism, either. I strongly disagree with the criticism implied here — for one thing, it completely ignores the provocation of thousands of rockets coming out of Gaza and therefore abandons truth for Oliphant’s bias — but it is Oliphant’s opinion, and not news. It may put Oliphant into the small percentage of people who will always think that Israel is wrong regardless of the circumstance, but that doesn’t qualify as anti-Semitism on its own, either.
Foxman has a point, though, with the jackbooted figure goose-stepping behind the Star of David. That’s an obvious reference to Israelis being Nazis, which in my opinion is an anti-Semitic statement, as well as being completely false. That, combined with the Star of David and the grossly unfair characterization of Gaza being an innocent victim totals to anti-Semitism. After all, editorial cartoons are judged by their totality, and not the sum of their individual components.
What do you think? Take the poll and add your comments:
Update: That should be Pat Oliphant, not Tom Oliphant. The latter is a columnist. My apologies for the error.
Update II: YidwithLid says the problem is stupidity, not hatred.
Update III: Meryl Yourish has a blunt suggestion for Oliphant.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »
That is worth a head shot.
TexasJew on March 26, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Alleged, my @$$. I count four anti-semitic themes in that ‘cartoon’
Vashta.Nerada on March 26, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Der Sturmer on-line.
RobCon on March 26, 2009 at 1:00 PM
There is never a “who cares” option. I pay very little attention to any T.O.
matthew26 on March 26, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Playing in Buffalo isn’t going to help.
YYZ on March 26, 2009 at 1:01 PM
More despicable, lying scum from the left. These people are the lowest.
progressoverpeace on March 26, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Left-wing Antisemitism at it’s ‘finest.’ Disgusting.
I wish more American Jews stick their heads out of the ground and see the world for it is, not what they want to believe.
Lance Murdock on March 26, 2009 at 1:03 PM
meh.
ernesto on March 26, 2009 at 1:03 PM
This kind of stuff is nothing new.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Sturmer
RobCon on March 26, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Oliphant’s message is naive, ill-informed and stupid. It is not anti-semitic. Geesh, that’s like saying someone who criticizes Obama’s communist revolution is a racist.
patriette on March 26, 2009 at 1:03 PM
When a writer has to string together so many concepts to get one thought across, it usually means the writer has no idea what he or she is talking about.
I don’t believe Mr. Oliphant has a clue what he was trying to actually convey here. It looks like he started doodling and got carried away.
AubieJon on March 26, 2009 at 1:04 PM
The cartoonist in question is Pat Oliphant, not Tom.
flyfisher on March 26, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Perhaps we should use the same guidelines for this as we do for obscenity. Does this have any literary or artistic merit? As art it obviously fails, but what about literary merit; does this say anything important or revelatory? Jews are Nazis victimizing Gazans? Very derivative, and not even timely. Does this have any originally — an original point, an original argument, an original expression? I don’t see it.
Verdict: Obscene. And anti-Semitic, though perhaps not purposely so.
calbear on March 26, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Beyond anti-semitic. Why doesn’t he just have a cartoon of a Jew drinking the blood of christians?
Cripes.
mjk on March 26, 2009 at 1:05 PM
It’s anti-Jew. That is the seemingly popular position to take, don’t you know.
Where are the cartoons showing Jews as victims? Just curious.
PBoilermaker on March 26, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Yes it does. When reason and logic fail to explain why in Oliphant’s mind Israel is ALWAYS wrong, what other explination is there except that he’s anti-Semitism or anti-Israel, take your pick, they are the same thing.
Maxx on March 26, 2009 at 1:05 PM
It is true that the Star of David is in the flag of Israel, but it’s also a Jewish symbol unlike, say, the maple leaf in the Canadian flag. There are other symbols of secular Israel, such as the entire flag, the geographic shape of the country, or … I dunno … one of those Israeli hats that people used to wear a couple generations ago.
I guess it’s similar to using a crescent to symbolize any country that has that symbol in their flag – it could easily be misinterpreted as a symbol of Islam (and the Danish cartoons comparison/reaction will start here in 5…4…3…).
YYZ on March 26, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Yep, I’d say it is pretty well thought out anti-semitism.
Since the star of David is on a uni-cycle and not some other mode of transportation, does that signal that Oliphant expects the Jews to go it alone now that Obama is in the White House?
myrenovations on March 26, 2009 at 1:06 PM
I defend the right of anyone creating a cartoon as an expression of free speech.
I also defend the right to call it what it is – anti-semetic and any rationale opposition to it, including censorship.
Feature over form.
Odie1941 on March 26, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Did it cross the line if you hung candidate Obama in effigy or was it the same as as hanging Bush or Palin in effigy?
There’s your answer and Oliphant knows the difference.
Skywise on March 26, 2009 at 1:07 PM
The jack-booted goose-stepper is what pushes it over the line.
rbj on March 26, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Part of the problem with anything criticizing Israel is there is no delineation between Church and State. I think this cartoon using the star of David which could represent the religion or the state symbolizes that problem perfectly. I don’t always think Israel is right but I also don’t always think it is wrong. Anytime you think Israel is wrong you get hit with anti semitic accusations. It is the same problem with criticizing Obama and being a racist.
msmveritas on March 26, 2009 at 1:07 PM
It violates Godwin’s law, but otherwise doesn’t seem to encourage prejudice against Jewish people based on religious or cultural reasons.
dedalus on March 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM
I am wary of any political speech being silenced. I do not like his cartoon…I think it is hateful. But, if we are not willing to defend his right to his despicable speech/expression, then why would we think we have a leg to stand on when they come after us. Sure, it’s insensitive…it’s horrid in this TRULY anti semitic environs we live in, but, it’s still a right. Let’s not be grievance mongers. Even if the ship is down, fight for freedom and fight the idea…not the right to say it.
Mommypundit on March 26, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Of corse it is. Just ask all those Holocaust survivors from the ghettos of Warsaw. They all wore yellow “Star’s of David” out of civic pride.
Tommy_G on March 26, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Let me say this:
IT IS ANTI SEMITIC.
But he is free to say it.
Mommypundit on March 26, 2009 at 1:10 PM
No, that’s not like that at all. He didn’t just write “Israel is naughty”.
The analogous criticism would be if the person criticizing Obama did so with a cartoon that showed him as a 1920s stereotypical African American and had a noose around something representing his policies, then yes, that would be racist.
strictnein on March 26, 2009 at 1:10 PM
This is anti-Semitic at its most visceral level. The only thing missing is a swastika. Naivete is no excuse for misinformation.
Tennman on March 26, 2009 at 1:11 PM
I don’t think anyone here is saying he doesn’t have the right to publish such an absurd cartoon. We are just discussing how absurd it is.
PBoilermaker on March 26, 2009 at 1:11 PM
***hey Ed, i think you have the wrong Oliphant…
PAT oliphant is the one behind the star of david…
TOM oliphant is a guy at the boston globe….
same last name, different guy. PAT is the one, not TOM
just a heads up! ***
battleoflepanto1571 on March 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM
I have no problem with this; sure it’s stupid cartoon and showcases a serious bias, but oh well, that’s life in a free (for the time being) country.
It’s not exactly very “deep” in construct so the cartoon will easily feed the morons who already gobble up such anti-Israeli/zionist/Jew tripe.
No tipping over buses and burning down KFC’s for me, I’ll just continue to read Ramirez’s great stuff and be happy.
Bishop on March 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM
What would make that racist? The noose or the 1920’s stereotype?
flyfisher on March 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Good call. The West Bank carves out a shape of the map of Israel which looks like a mouth, and the dimensions are more anthropomorphic than a Star of David. As I said, this fellow was very unoriginal in this instance, and if you can’t be original, don’t be offensive. (There’s a reason Eminem was popular for a longer period than Andrew Dice Clay….)
calbear on March 26, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Correct. The only bad thing is that now Jews worldwide will be declaring jihad, threatening bystanders, and burning things……oh, wait…..
Vashta.Nerada on March 26, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Controversial? Yes. Anti-Semitic? No.
geckomon on March 26, 2009 at 1:13 PM
You’re right. I was just running with the idea. What happened with the Muslim cartoons, and others…tantamount to censorship in the name of hate speech. Slippery slope, is all. And it certainly is an anti semitic image…and wrong politics…and faulty worldview. But, anyway…
Mommypundit on March 26, 2009 at 1:13 PM
I disagree. the jack-booted goose-stepper is Oliphant’s misguided attempt to use irony; i.e. the oppressed are now the tyrants. if this were true, the image would be quite powerful. since it’s not, it appears foolish and hysterical. but please, criticism (no matter how wrong) of a sovereign state’s military policy does not necessarily mean that one is speaking out of hatred for the ethnic group that comprises that state’s population.
patriette on March 26, 2009 at 1:13 PM
It takes a lot of effort and a lot of self induced blindness to side with the Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Such effort and blindness could only be motivated by Jew hate, there is no other explanation.
Maxx on March 26, 2009 at 1:14 PM
heh. Seriously. :o)
Mommypundit on March 26, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Yep.
myrenovations on March 26, 2009 at 1:16 PM
That looks like a nazi era propoganda picture. It crosses the line for me. There has to be a better way to make his point.
sonofdy on March 26, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Then this explains the existence of “jackboot justice”.
RepubChica on March 26, 2009 at 1:16 PM
If you thought that the Chimp cartoon and the Mohammed cartoon were “expressions of freedom,” then this shouldn’t be any different.
It’d be anti semitic if there were a Jew holding bags of gold and controlling a government, this is mild.
Enough with the politically calculated outrage, there are bigger things to deal with right now.
John_Locke on March 26, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Well, it’s not anti-semitic as it doesn’t take a jab at all Jews. However, it’s viciously anti-Israel.
I’d say it’s in very bad taste, and outrage is justified. I will hope that the criticism will be based on facts on the ground in Israel, and not just general whining about how Teh Lef7 hates the Jews.
radiofreevillage on March 26, 2009 at 1:17 PM
That’s totally untrue. Israel has a relationship with Jews not unlike Japan has with Japanese or China has with Chinese or any other country that has an ethnic heritage. In Israel’s case (unlike the others) it is a matter of survival. The reactions from the Gaza operations show exactly why this is true, to this day.
The Star of David does not represent Israel. It represents Jews.
Not quite. This cartoon stands as a perfect example: Israel gives away Gaza to a bunch of primitives, who commence to firing rockets at Israelis, and finally (way too late and way too lightly) Israel moves in to stop it (which they didn’t, anyway). And the whole world blows a gasket about how evil Israel is. That’s just insane and represents a pathological hatred of Jews.
Personally, I don’t care. People are allowed to hate whomever they want, with or without reason, but it is what it is and they are the scum that they are.
progressoverpeace on March 26, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Is it just me or is the body in fact not headless, but rather has the head of a snake curving around over the right shoulder?
What’s with that?
And is that going beyond mere criticism?
daledamos on March 26, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Oh I agree he’s free to say it. Just like I’m free to say Oliphant is a putrid anti-Semite.
Maxx on March 26, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Visually, the goosestepping is what cinches it as anti-Semitic more than the Star of David or the pea-brained implication that it’s Gazan women & children and not Hamas that Israel is fighting.
Conceptually, to compare precise military counterstrikes against missile-lobbing terrorists to the Nazi’s systematic extermination of a people is stupidity of the highest degree. Oliphant, like all liberals, has a mental block which prohibits him from ever holding responsible for their actions the non-democracy, the non-white, the non-Judeo-Christian, the non-American, the non-Republican.
He’s entitled to his idiot opinion, we’re entitled not buy the newspapers it’s published in.
Crusty on March 26, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Yes, Oliphant has the right to sketch such an image and then publish it; however, this is the type of image that will be used to stir up antisemitism by the “anti-Zionists.” Zionism is not the same as Judaism (both religious and cultural), but it is often used as a term to label the “powerful Jews.” In other words, Jews are fine people so long as they stay out of politics and finances. This previous statement is more than anti-Israeli sentiment. It essentially is a statement that would encourage the marginalization of Jews. That is antisemitic.
Upstater85 on March 26, 2009 at 1:20 PM
We can object to a cartoon without calling for the artist’s head.
zmdavid on March 26, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Where are the riots…………?
Seven Percent Solution on March 26, 2009 at 1:20 PM
I disagree – how do you explain the shark mouth on the star of David leading the headless thug?
Vashta.Nerada on March 26, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Sick, uninformed, horsepotatos (or is it horsepotatoes?).
Limerick on March 26, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Agreed.
ladyingray on March 26, 2009 at 1:22 PM
I can’t believe all this nit-picking as to whether its anti-Semitic or anti-Israel, heck lets throw anti-Zionist in there while we are at it. There is no difference, that’s like arguing if the glass is half full or the glass is half empty. Israel, last time I checked was a nation of Jews.
Maxx on March 26, 2009 at 1:23 PM
You muster murderous outrage over a cartoon with provocative imaging that can be perceived as anti-semitic. But you have button-pushing jokes for a cartoon with equally provocative images that could be perceived as racially charged if not seditious.
You are a joke and your twisted need to reject political correctness stops squarely at your own door. Pussy.
The Race Card on March 26, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Very true.
I would also note that the expression “anti-semitism” is the old version of “anti-Zionist” – euphemisms to express a hatred of Jews without mentioning Jews.
progressoverpeace on March 26, 2009 at 1:23 PM
I am opposed to anything that supports
awake on March 26, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Yes, in fact, pre-Obama, we would use our capital to punish the “artist.”
Upstater85 on March 26, 2009 at 1:23 PM
…Hamas or Islam in general.
awake on March 26, 2009 at 1:24 PM
And the difference, either in content or imagery, between this cartoon and the ones in Hamas/Fatah-run Palestinian papers is?
spmat on March 26, 2009 at 1:24 PM
ANti-Semitic, yes. But he should be allowed to publish it (of course, papers should have the right to not publish it, too.) Of course, I would be shocked if they would publish a cartoon showing the opposite (which would actually be more accurate) opinion, and I have this sneaking suspicion that Islamic organizations would have a different interpretation of “free speech” than Jewish organizations.
exhelodrvr on March 26, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Or those papers in Egypt, Iran or Syria, for that matter.
spmat on March 26, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Oh no! That would be okay…..Christians are fine fodder. Muslims are so loved by the world that you can NEVER say or do anything to them! Christians and Jews? HATED the world over! Do anything you want to do to them!
/sarc
Vntnrse on March 26, 2009 at 1:25 PM
agreed. Though, the IDEA presented is worth tucking away. It is dangerous…though protected speech. We want our right for the same speech, thus we protect his…but our rebuttal is what is needed in substance and strength.
Back to the real problem: Our communist overlords.
Mommypundit on March 26, 2009 at 1:25 PM
In a normal sane world a cartoon like this would result in the cartoonist being ridiculed and generally treated with contempt by all reasonable people.
However while there are those of us who see this for what it is and feel contempt for the person even if we do not want it banned as free expression, I do not believe that this man will be treated with the contempt that he deserves by a large segment of the population especially those in positions of power and authority let alone those in the media who are in step or should I say goose step with his views.
And this is perhaps the saddest part of all…
TrueBrit on March 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Yes, I believe that many so called anti-Zionist are simply individuals that believe that in some way Jews had it coming (from Hitler and the rest of Europe) for their greedy, selfish ways and they should finally be punished for their success…
Upstater85 on March 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Here are a couple of tests that can be applied to the cartoon:
Q: Does Oliphant publish cartoon like this when Palestinians are brutalized by other Arabs?
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/4238efe3f8eaacbd1613b65183b1902f.htm
A: No
Q: Does Hamas, who controls Gaza and fires rockets into Israel proclaim as their goal the destruction of Israel and all its people?
A: Yes
Q: Does Oliphant sympathize with or support Hamas?
A: Yes
There is no other answer to the question: Is the cartoon and Oliphant anti-Semitic then yes.
jerryofva on March 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM
If the Hillary/Palin dust up over the Jewish anti-Iran rally at the UN didn’t cause a riot then don’t look for this to cause one.
Dire Straits on March 26, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Many leaders and countries have been labeled Nazis by (usually simple minded) critics. Bush and the U.S. more frequently than most in recent years.
Of course Jewish people were the victims of the Nazis which makes the cartoon more upsetting, however, it doesn’t seem any more anti-Semitic than would a cartoon depicting Obama as a modern slave master seem racist or pro-slavery.
dedalus on March 26, 2009 at 1:27 PM
The more the democrats pander to your group, the more you can ratchet up the victim mentality.
Upstater85 on March 26, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Excellent topic Ed, great work.
I’ll give the “kooks” take.
As a recent convert to the reality of the New World Order, one of the things that I’ve discovered is that if you criticize anything Jewish, in my case people seem to think by saying banking cartel I mean Jews (not sure why, the cartel is worldwide and run by many different races), but in particular the Rothschilds, you get tagged an anti-semite.
That was one of the most disappointing things I’ve discovered. This comes from people on this site that call themselves conservatives, of which focus on anything other than character is anathema, yet in my case it’s been the exact opposite, I’ve had several people say I’m an antisemite, frankly it surprised me. This site bashes many prominent Jews such as Tim Geithner, Madeleine Albright, John Podesta, Samuel Berger, etc, and I’ve never called anyone here a Jew hater. I guess you have to be a conspiracy theorist or a liberal that criticizes someone Jewish to be anti-semitic. Conservatives that criticize Jews are exempt I guess.
Man, you should be free to criticize anyone regardless of their race and not be called a racist, judge the content of the character not the color of the skin. I thought this was the conservative credo, I was wrong.
True_King on March 26, 2009 at 1:28 PM
But you have button-pushing jokes for a cartoon with equally provocative images that could be perceived as racially charged if not seditious
Sedition? How did you find sedition in his comment?
Inigo Montoya wants to have a word with you.
Bishop on March 26, 2009 at 1:28 PM
If Obama was depicted as a slave master over the whities, this image would be used by white supremacists to bash in the heads of blacks. Do you really believe that the artists doesn’t think that an image like this could be used to convert Muslims to “the cause?”
Upstater85 on March 26, 2009 at 1:31 PM
You forgot David Frum… we pick on him a lot too.
myrenovations on March 26, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Oliphant is a douche of the highest order. Tom Tomles is often close behind that as well, but his stuff is usually more thoughtful than Oliphant’s.
Grafted on March 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM
It’s anti-Semitic, and un-funny. He should be punished to the full extent of the laws regarding such things.
Fortunately, our laws protect free speech. Also fortunately, I think there are still enough sane people left to ensure that the result of his comic will hurt instead of help his cause and POV.
That’s entirely debatable, of course.
connertown on March 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Er … Geithner and Podesta are not Jews.
progressoverpeace on March 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Has anyone on this site ever called you a Jew hater simply because you didn’t like the Rothschilds?
Upstater85 on March 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Replace the Star of David with the Obamination’s logo and the poor victim with the American people and you have a more accurate cartoon.
Grafted on March 26, 2009 at 1:33 PM
That’s twice this hour you’ve caused me to muss my keyboard.
You’re en fuego, ahora.
connertown on March 26, 2009 at 1:33 PM
The folks you mentioned are abominable for their liberal/criminal existence. I’ve never thought about whether or not they are Jewish.
The King I follow and worship was a Jew. I post here regularly and have not witnessed any of these folks being criticized for being Jewish. They are criticized for being morons and thieves.
AubieJon on March 26, 2009 at 1:34 PM
How about instead of an old woman with a child Gaza is represented by a terrorist with a bomb strapped to his body? Then it isn’t anti semitic.
ctmom on March 26, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Responsibility for the actions of extremists is too tight a restriction to put on freedom of expression. Even non-critical depictions of blacks, Jews, Christians, etc. might send extremists into a rage. It’s almost akin to women being told not to dress a given way since some guys in some setting are animals.
dedalus on March 26, 2009 at 1:36 PM
And you can replace the goose-stepper with the idiot messiah’s own Leninesque poster shot and it’s good to go.
progressoverpeace on March 26, 2009 at 1:36 PM
For me, it matters not if this cartoon is anti-semitic. We live in a free country and people have the right to say what they want. You don’t have the right to not be offended. If you don’t like the cartoon then don’t read Pat Oliphant or a paper that publishes his cartoons.
The problem I have is the defense of this cartoon by leftists while they screamed outrage regarding the NY Post Travis cartoon.
I spent plenty of time on HuffPo yesterday in just utter amazement at how people defended this cartoon. One guy said the holocaust was 65 years ago so get over it. Another commenter said the star of david can represent many things and so can a goosestepping soldier.
I thought that was funny and quickly reminded the commenter that a chimp can represent many things as well. How often was a chimp used to represent Bush? Didn’t cartoons during the civil war use a monkey to represent Lincoln sometimes.
That is my problem. The hypocritical defense and outrage.
willt73 on March 26, 2009 at 1:36 PM
+1!
geckomon on March 26, 2009 at 1:37 PM
+1,000 :}
Dire Straits on March 26, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Most anti-Semites start to foam at the mouth when talking about the State of Israel. There is probably a small group of purists who only view Israel as politically evil while holding up Jews as good people. But it seems like a rare breed.
I agree with this point. I also think that people who instantly jump to attack Oliphant are similar to those who attack Republicans accused of racially-charged rhetoric without knowing the context. In much the same way that liberals are afraid not to stand up on behalf of ethinic and racial minorities, many Republicans are afraid of being labeled anti-Semites for going easy on stuff like this.
There is room to perceive this as a political jab at harsh Israeli tactics. However, the depiction of jack boots and a Star of David with teeth is meant to push the buttons of Jews. Perhaps that is the actual prejudicial act — directing this cartoon to mostly hurt Jews.
The Race Card on March 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I’m rabidly pro-Israel and a reformed Jew who supports the Yisrael Betanyu party in Israel. I would argue that the cartoon above is morally disturbed in its confusion of who is the aggressor and who is the victim, but it’s not anti-Semitic. The foreign policy left mistakes victim for the aggressor all the time. Oliphant follows the left’s fine tradition where Chomsky defended the Pol Pot regime against the “imperialist” United States, or where Jimmy Carter sabotaged President Bill Clinton’s efforts to contain North Korea’s nuclear weapon research program.
thuja on March 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Yes it does, but that’s nothing new when considering many left-tards think Palestinian terrorists (Hamas, et al) are “freedom fighters” and it is the Israeli’s and the US that are the real terrorists!
Reminds me of that little brain-washed girl in the Code-Puke video when she mentioned Palestine…tell a lie often enough to those without a functioning synapse and the propaganda lies become fact!
Some day soon idiots like Oliphant and other terrorist apologist ilk will finally come to see Isreal is on the side for good and Hamas et al are on the side of evil and they will come to the realization of just how wrong they are and bow their heads in shame and embarrassment as they should!
Liberty or Death on March 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM
You’re en fuego, ahora.
connertown on March 26, 2009 at 1:33 PM
I don’t speak Romanian, sorry.
Bishop on March 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM
My statement was tragically muddled. I was referring to the NY Post cartoon being perceived as showing the killing of President Obama/chimpanzee.
The Race Card on March 26, 2009 at 1:40 PM
I suppose it depends on your definition of anti-semetic. The cartoon isn’t criticising an individual so your comparison isn’t really valid in this case. Is the cartoon criticising all Jews everywhere? Probably not – just the ones who are Israeli citizens. I think it’s ‘racist’ because it blindly takes the side of the Palestinians and perpetuates the racist notion that those Joooos in Israel are murderous fascists.
gwelf on March 26, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Er … Geithner and Podesta are not Jews.
progressoverpeace on March 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM
That one is going to sting.
Bishop on March 26, 2009 at 1:41 PM
I never said anything about restricting free expression. I was just making a point. You said that the cartoon didn’t seem antisemitic and compared it to a cartoon of slave master O. I simply pointed out, that it is very naïve to assume that no anti-Semites or white supremacists would use such images to stir the hate pot.
Upstater85 on March 26, 2009 at 1:41 PM
King-boy:
Somebody got to Podesta before I did but I want you to know that I can verify John Podesta as being Catholic. I knew both John and his brother Tony from my days in Chicago. They are good Italian Catholics.
The fact that you identified Geithner and Podesta as Jews shows that you are an anti-Semitie. I disallow the “well, I am ignorant” defense.
Oh yeah although Albright is ethnically Jewish she wasn’t raised that way and didn’t know until she was SECSTATE what her background was. She is no friend of Israel either.
jerryofva on March 26, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Daniel Pearl’s father Judea Pearl recently had an op-ed in the LA Times that I think is entirely relevant here: Is Anti-Zionism Hate?
thousandfold on March 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM
It doesn’t matter if they have the blood of the Juice
Upstater85 on March 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Oh my gosh. Throwback.
Mommypundit on March 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »